<%BANNER%>

Understanding the Various Influences on Special Education Pre-Service Teachers' Appropriation of Conceptual and Practica...

University of Florida Institutional Repository
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022476/00001

Material Information

Title: Understanding the Various Influences on Special Education Pre-Service Teachers' Appropriation of Conceptual and Practical Tools for Teaching Reading
Physical Description: 1 online resource (207 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Leko, Melinda
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: activity, disabilities, education, learning, pedagogical, pre, service, special, teacher, theory, tools
Special Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Special Education thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Working under an activity theory framework, the purpose of this study was to investigate how learning experiences in special education teacher preparation programs related to teacher candidates in the context of reading instruction for struggling readers and students with disabilities. More specifically, this study examined the interactions among special education pre-service teachers, their university preparation in reading, and their practicum experiences, with the ultimate goal to understand how these interactions influenced the pre-service teachers? appropriation of conceptual and practical tools. Investigating how pre-service teachers interact with their various preparatory experiences is important to understanding the extent to which teacher education makes a difference for prospective teachers. To understand the influences on special education pre-service teacher appropriation of conceptual and practical tools grounded theory methods were used. Six special education pre-service teachers, who taught reading to struggling readers and students with disabilities during a practicum experience, participated in the study. In addition to pre-service teachers, their practicum cooperating teachers, field supervisors, and reading methods course instructors also participated. The data sources consisted of participant interviews, videotaped classroom observations, the Reading in Special Education (RISE) observation instrument, pre and post concept maps, and prior experiences and beliefs surveys. Grounded within the data on pre-service teacher appropriation of conceptual and practical tools, a theory emerged from three analysis phases (i.e., open, axial, and selective coding). In summary, six pre-service teachers were all affected by influences comprising individual and social context activity systems, though the extent to which these activity systems affected individual pre-service teachers varied. From the activity systems, four concepts emerged as chief mediators of pre-service teacher appropriation of tools. Of these concepts, the most important was opportunities to appropriate knowledge in practice. Without such opportunities, pre-service teachers struggled to appropriate tools to higher levels. While opportunities to appropriate knowledge in practice emerged as the core concept, three component concepts (a) personal qualities, (b) motivation for knowledge assimilation, and (c) access to knowledge also played a role in the appropriation of conceptual and practical tools. The interactions of the core concept and the component concepts worked to either facilitate or hinder tool appropriation. In the best case, the concepts worked in positive ways, thus facilitating pre-service teachers? appropriation of tools. In this instance the interaction of supportive personal attributes, a future goal as a special educator, and a positive special education practicum experience with plentiful opportunities to situate explicit, systematic reading knowledge in practice led to high levels of tool appropriation.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Melinda Leko.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Brownell, Mary T.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022476:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022476/00001

Material Information

Title: Understanding the Various Influences on Special Education Pre-Service Teachers' Appropriation of Conceptual and Practical Tools for Teaching Reading
Physical Description: 1 online resource (207 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Leko, Melinda
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: activity, disabilities, education, learning, pedagogical, pre, service, special, teacher, theory, tools
Special Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Special Education thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Working under an activity theory framework, the purpose of this study was to investigate how learning experiences in special education teacher preparation programs related to teacher candidates in the context of reading instruction for struggling readers and students with disabilities. More specifically, this study examined the interactions among special education pre-service teachers, their university preparation in reading, and their practicum experiences, with the ultimate goal to understand how these interactions influenced the pre-service teachers? appropriation of conceptual and practical tools. Investigating how pre-service teachers interact with their various preparatory experiences is important to understanding the extent to which teacher education makes a difference for prospective teachers. To understand the influences on special education pre-service teacher appropriation of conceptual and practical tools grounded theory methods were used. Six special education pre-service teachers, who taught reading to struggling readers and students with disabilities during a practicum experience, participated in the study. In addition to pre-service teachers, their practicum cooperating teachers, field supervisors, and reading methods course instructors also participated. The data sources consisted of participant interviews, videotaped classroom observations, the Reading in Special Education (RISE) observation instrument, pre and post concept maps, and prior experiences and beliefs surveys. Grounded within the data on pre-service teacher appropriation of conceptual and practical tools, a theory emerged from three analysis phases (i.e., open, axial, and selective coding). In summary, six pre-service teachers were all affected by influences comprising individual and social context activity systems, though the extent to which these activity systems affected individual pre-service teachers varied. From the activity systems, four concepts emerged as chief mediators of pre-service teacher appropriation of tools. Of these concepts, the most important was opportunities to appropriate knowledge in practice. Without such opportunities, pre-service teachers struggled to appropriate tools to higher levels. While opportunities to appropriate knowledge in practice emerged as the core concept, three component concepts (a) personal qualities, (b) motivation for knowledge assimilation, and (c) access to knowledge also played a role in the appropriation of conceptual and practical tools. The interactions of the core concept and the component concepts worked to either facilitate or hinder tool appropriation. In the best case, the concepts worked in positive ways, thus facilitating pre-service teachers? appropriation of tools. In this instance the interaction of supportive personal attributes, a future goal as a special educator, and a positive special education practicum experience with plentiful opportunities to situate explicit, systematic reading knowledge in practice led to high levels of tool appropriation.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Melinda Leko.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Brownell, Mary T.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022476:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
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 E20101201_AAAAME INGEST_TIME 2010-12-02T05:03:13Z PACKAGE UFE0022476_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 25271604 DFID F20101201_AACWLG ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH leko_m_Page_160.tif GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
09921bec239f90b37499cb18f7420dcb
SHA-1
a8f30c492090164ee8b32a902906155fc4f865cd
F20101201_AACVIE leko_m_Page_138.tif
dc5cf1efb35b5f1a81c8f36268413703
43f8e129682ac3764d2453762748955070d97024
F20101201_AACVHQ leko_m_Page_087.tif
3d5281d52aa2d4d9f0a9343e2f366965
9598b4c8fc3b9b927bead554a992da3397186179
F20101201_AACWKS leko_m_Page_131.tif
b52aabc70789456bdf8cd354224679f2
6a9505484de393a63aff0ca75e640c0f7a009df2
F20101201_AACWLH leko_m_Page_161.tif
d13a6e45cf7db1db362eab4bbdcc6ad4
68c4c6edddbd1c0a3a51b833a3e20cd924abf835
1051947 F20101201_AACVIF leko_m_Page_051.jp2
6a964d807c94c39cc87a005bbaa490ce
57fc0848fac7199683c5996d8b9f1e6da25de0cb
27144 F20101201_AACVHR leko_m_Page_115.QC.jpg
9dd0ee8bcd827d87ae55a73f5b65b514
de0f0c77968272de104febd5c101eb20d92cf42d
F20101201_AACWKT leko_m_Page_132.tif
b1dd0f56c03ce6e3b0f3a5cdaf9e16a8
cfc53201b3f53ae28f81b5a7a608eec452d5ff62
F20101201_AACWLI leko_m_Page_164.tif
0fd718345b6399ba69003176eeb506cd
2bd8367fbbaa27f3add36e2f911cd44f958ab920
6479 F20101201_AACVIG leko_m_Page_113thm.jpg
fa654bef61152bb929d46eda6d7dde13
3f8e9179f514e93a9455b3df37bc9703fc66b23f
28403 F20101201_AACVHS leko_m_Page_101.QC.jpg
b2fca992c8217f84f3c22d5d78feb42d
cb15126675654c10ec5be016be1535dea56dad09
25265604 F20101201_AACWKU leko_m_Page_133.tif
5ecf7b4fb040406a3814a7ae4a410e07
32383047b3a53d715127cccd7e4538f6cac38c24
6451 F20101201_AACVIH leko_m_Page_081thm.jpg
a27fef08fdfb68a97f05dba6c00a8df1
9b3a6cde2924f90751c847c89fca8e21194339d7
6396 F20101201_AACVHT leko_m_Page_036thm.jpg
bf309b1553a9c05b404544acf4a245be
b5efed95f839b312a3f914e62e841833c831f2b5
F20101201_AACWKV leko_m_Page_134.tif
257dbcedf93ff3af12c7305ee3e8138a
dd7d6f3e72dc0a59fae142339c360ab41044ad4c
6548 F20101201_AACVII leko_m_Page_154thm.jpg
03f2aad03f24b97f473f7f565327034d
7dfdeb4d45d5989e3915125277aad77a6f874728
1051979 F20101201_AACVHU leko_m_Page_025.jp2
3de3464831dc9c1b164118a9024da7c6
0246e02b11b4919c64274a90b95f5569ad2f19cf
F20101201_AACWKW leko_m_Page_135.tif
e7912427e6fcae335daa2b587e3ae7bd
1493e3b062d503ab4e5c0512a4ef0da8e3cfca73
F20101201_AACWKX leko_m_Page_137.tif
421d5f3cef60b7f8ad9486594ff7196e
75af8659c4c7d08598303d52b5e9b6961d664cff
F20101201_AACVIJ leko_m_Page_050.tif
28b6cea2ec6f700c49e290f79f95a2e8
2445f925ecb134a037e5858cabda09dfdf8263f3
F20101201_AACVHV leko_m_Page_088.tif
9dc7d929ce7d171716958bdd8456b5aa
1fa9f73346169a7c179945bcd9427ea7933dc256
F20101201_AACWKY leko_m_Page_139.tif
609ce26ed4997192c3c58a5808c046b5
ccba5ae597b714efbf94f1b478be3038cac86d28
92649 F20101201_AACVIK leko_m_Page_095.jpg
64043416124d06d34120a8eb29e56187
58a91743cab51d505275f29c32214de83d96edbb
6283 F20101201_AACVHW leko_m_Page_015thm.jpg
9ce5235672eaca9ad48ec6f244560a72
f1925cf6dc3a154cb5ba1e077c99dd11f88ba847
F20101201_AACWKZ leko_m_Page_142.tif
edd0bfd69b5c92c595f4fdd4f0b8960a
96432a09d3ca7eb912acfc4ef114154c3fda52d2
464035 F20101201_AACVIL leko_m_Page_009.jp2
8c1d01ade60f63e31a66e2d69811ee66
d47fdb62f89687a14b2b5f254840e71ea033b5de
6819 F20101201_AACVHX leko_m_Page_112thm.jpg
4be54cf86f6d52fee991c2fed2a7d04b
f780d6766154166f37594a81b06707a9b16649f3
42159 F20101201_AACVJA leko_m_Page_193.jpg
88b11ffea2ea5e871e6b7f3f8a0ceab6
bde81dc56c1e4bf9a457805eed40d74b60678106
6677 F20101201_AACVIM leko_m_Page_139thm.jpg
ae63ec508e93e4f1fa8a854b4c297bf5
9c026a511ded7a98d420a9d334cbcf99647f581f
29937 F20101201_AACVHY leko_m_Page_162.QC.jpg
c43361f1ed1e15607f4b1dbc55c7e736
7780c5c597dacca32d1c3b624ea8894a6d515b7a
F20101201_AACVIN leko_m_Page_081.tif
ed1d0674271a0b5bc6b4c387883fe74d
8b9a8024ab7f508ebdf3f8aa615e75fe923b7646
F20101201_AACVHZ leko_m_Page_151.tif
dd2039f4b8e6652a8c330d6a706dbd39
08f67632aa8cf12dc3a9cdf0c35448c5695f66c5
2790 F20101201_AACVJB leko_m_Page_134thm.jpg
6b4e811913b8177a4c494314498155f4
117f5efb0f1747f3ca70284a7def05879f96e136
F20101201_AACVIO leko_m_Page_136.tif
380bded5c612fa1a709d30766f511598
f67b6e34b5ebd32f78965eb0736546acc65daf46
91283 F20101201_AACVJC leko_m_Page_087.jpg
8d417da174e0725431740c054a060c89
4fd811c069b8996c4456c681d4223978ceb3c696
88672 F20101201_AACVIP leko_m_Page_065.jpg
6f099f5a8818f5771b1c4fb49e8fef54
889bfa4b6eda3cca467426b0a1fc857c3e8b04d7
646470 F20101201_AACVJD leko_m_Page_186.jp2
4064a6cdb610c33cd6a9ed1dec2464fd
1fdc09b28b518f31598aa3dddf2cfaecfb8dfb22
88813 F20101201_AACVIQ leko_m_Page_049.jpg
c697162c9a87f8affe492cf856e5f44a
88e1bf01f9be9b0b3ca0c731f2c82d51893df8db
F20101201_AACVJE leko_m_Page_181.tif
884a7ff97644870feb16366bf55da178
2c07ad8baa594be5e64a67987719e065af86b078
19875 F20101201_AACVIR leko_m_Page_206.QC.jpg
c9c7db5175186452a8a4cb4bab86f8b5
09c98481cf528a7d6ffc8f6777232eaf29607e72
F20101201_AACVJF leko_m_Page_125.tif
93e40ca936e307a1ecfc3470ed63f00c
95c01a04b8ea536a0b0a232779d4422b1ec43f7f
1051960 F20101201_AACVIS leko_m_Page_112.jp2
2a8c6d5c737efb10711f64cfe4321ca2
597a33a843505da4ce09aa488bee9a418bacc57e
F20101201_AACVJG leko_m_Page_057.tif
79b42af2fb3be05bd100d106929c2bfb
ce4f7e97bc2681b3a65de6e45de449434eb1d263
26286 F20101201_AACVIT leko_m_Page_125.QC.jpg
9cd853060229bda2fd8a29e14fd5d545
73b061f10c4139bacdd52fa1cd6c146bf1333856
1051981 F20101201_AACVJH leko_m_Page_202.jp2
e5f4aa6f84192b16575a61b5be32fab2
a0d581600c64149b340a0d3a677603ef4781ef4c
29184 F20101201_AACVIU leko_m_Page_095.QC.jpg
5f9b1c135e4bb203ddfc5bcc076ca426
4627da1b36b2c0cb6d6285bbf430063c678cd0fc
10553 F20101201_AACVJI leko_m_Page_022.QC.jpg
582c537d27e8ac320791994aeb8f5aff
f5830c3bd854f656ae6cc302173da74baaa99e7a
F20101201_AACVIV leko_m_Page_171.tif
64ffa397d1a290f92ceff36d14bd8ee3
8a58b35d77ce6826905b0f2f2ee8794a1336f30b
F20101201_AACVJJ leko_m_Page_166.tif
b39cbdaffb6be3352d3c845dd5b46be9
6c01ee3edaea4b3ae23c954a237cc49a5bb8427a
27340 F20101201_AACVIW leko_m_Page_120.QC.jpg
86b3b9bee52b7030404a589d26060bfa
ab205e68a5116c720550f3d4bce7376cae7c9b20
29170 F20101201_AACVJK leko_m_Page_020.QC.jpg
184d68fcd7b37df97f624907aca80453
dc42dc346730e5cea273ab470b02c4ac6a6c870e
F20101201_AACVIX leko_m_Page_163.tif
b3d67315a2cd0dff6dae31377a2c2058
71df709650105a8ca83fa70d6473068bef62c833
1051982 F20101201_AACVJL leko_m_Page_068.jp2
96c29765950616ea31f85fb5d395d0ce
704ccef1534bcd37bba0a92a96414025f8b7288a
95028 F20101201_AACVIY leko_m_Page_162.jpg
ee56fce2127d5ecb6d8a40c6f0f2be6e
1c41666bf5a9d85fc1ee6b1a8d93540a7ed0924b
F20101201_AACVKA leko_m_Page_153.tif
2098b31456401ac3c5c71f9f15ea333e
b91b2018d38c5c67822ce872168fd005f3e3edd7
1051985 F20101201_AACVJM leko_m_Page_167.jp2
0b8d7090e055d16626cd53f221d25cf8
dedbf9e78f31ddf476a5ee6d833735fe84f154f0
F20101201_AACVIZ leko_m_Page_058.tif
d79f4f2b4c08c9ef000c80c099e29d1c
b6921f2c2999892d4d22b6118e4d33dcbc1b04dc
F20101201_AACVKB leko_m_Page_013.tif
dbb9af044267c58827cf6ff360ff49d1
1a38ddc48229e00c1314b6bcca3780186d406896
28598 F20101201_AACVJN leko_m_Page_105.QC.jpg
8741cf5050877043d08ac2b7dbd1e463
30a7f24234eea94c9ae14e3174dab46bf25367de
61407 F20101201_AACVKC leko_m_Page_191.jpg
c50aa49bd879271cd62b46fddaf85a76
090d0b96e2230d44a6cbb15d2621b82aee06289e
6348 F20101201_AACVJO leko_m_Page_058thm.jpg
6c1430ddfa4105f1a61a208164a9c065
40da2628ade4df3e7a46f1af341c53e0a76d76e1
544009 F20101201_AACVKD leko_m_Page_183.jp2
1239e763fcbffc1148a7420fe9e68fc5
c4435bc98b55e6d4a25aa87c5828647c7186a8c6
6014 F20101201_AACVJP leko_m_Page_118thm.jpg
fedd5547f0651e6e74075137943d5d89
519318787010c8ce71c6b4fd948c82b6ba33e5d5
86681 F20101201_AACVKE leko_m_Page_151.jpg
80105dcf7e9b977699bc10586ac41f6d
94090c8e783cf1cabf9016247b75cf6856282967
27118 F20101201_AACVJQ leko_m_Page_059.QC.jpg
eb09c6d2be47c6d6f423e7eba8ffabaf
d456b0ffb7b4a9cc2d58ce913cf5f6c22c90291e
F20101201_AACVKF leko_m_Page_105.jp2
8d2b6531685e853116fb2e747ad953ef
cf65dac6782464393922a0a059c53ebf782a3c87
12675 F20101201_AACVJR leko_m_Page_187.QC.jpg
c8b95d193ea2d3fda3114740ebf8b0a6
c81852ec0c0a66e70417906cdd8df47838cdd1af
F20101201_AACVKG leko_m_Page_018.tif
075c96a5bd881fc6ad96497f02ae3535
fabd38d36bb75ecc19cbee2fe6b59297962807c7
90307 F20101201_AACVJS leko_m_Page_130.jpg
c507651a212724e598db0fab90ff39ac
6e9569c59cb7d92363cb4532fc2ca91a60931cb7
349935 F20101201_AACVKH leko_m_Page_179.jp2
9fe84373d6d73d7686c7daecd4969dce
9d08bbc818e8d251aa0da05478907c71d8c2765a
527 F20101201_AACVJT leko_m_Page_003thm.jpg
87bd288f8e7c6ea2777ef26735e30349
bedb705fcbc8d72024271eb4f06b2503a9ea6154
6392 F20101201_AACVKI leko_m_Page_156thm.jpg
bff314272c6f3c57c9def7d19d8f6882
a564e0eb1932d37d8ead935528ef2e91134f597b
2833 F20101201_AACVJU leko_m_Page_194thm.jpg
883acb4ec205c7a12b147b684abcea71
97d35ed2ef93afdb5f69c216640be3f944545f54
F20101201_AACVKJ leko_m_Page_128.tif
b5035bddc1e27dc8ff39d3de14da7e09
6f28ab5591401d8712b1c6b1eced095faa997734
77864 F20101201_AACVJV leko_m_Page_062.jpg
f7f58ced6e3c2f0e192ea790b7773069
551805bd8de5354b0a1f0dbd3bb14ec22080f384
73362 F20101201_AACVKK leko_m_Page_012.jpg
5f00357c55c2183d99f92a3fb92a796e
8416e8055a6868ade422c011bddf3243dd676f0d
411188 F20101201_AACVJW leko_m_Page_177.jp2
fb30514933d126c16fa83ae87dbd561d
8dd2fd2ea7e98243cba33f80cb58a2f19656fdc1
1241 F20101201_AACVKL leko_m_Page_136thm.jpg
c56a75af07ba5224b2bd28a89491d642
9137ee8557475661a6a0645fad164bec259d1444
F20101201_AACVJX leko_m_Page_105.tif
7be3c298ebc95c2f89aa6b8fdf24355d
65427e8ac651e1e99c619b4c8e9b380b95d2587f
6853 F20101201_AACVLA leko_m_Page_044thm.jpg
8d30b46e6f48d2e5a4540ddb1e9d24d3
1374ccea92492c3478bef64fc99ea32534a7dacb
68693 F20101201_AACVKM leko_m_Page_028.jpg
15339d2ae644844794d31c50468c5d35
c0a7fec271e2f0f29527dd4699962b548f66b9bc
6251 F20101201_AACVJY leko_m_Page_066thm.jpg
4210235185b353f8131b0c5bee5d7176
eb59b5d4ef6384606b2e9cbd9345a91a56e1812a
28222 F20101201_AACVLB leko_m_Page_109.QC.jpg
efb43092bcd116436329b503efeaf6c9
19f0e6f4d7d98e368ab226a6b6cd3cd7c1d9b9ab
1051977 F20101201_AACVKN leko_m_Page_081.jp2
cbe6f00d0600e1cd29410ec63558360a
6e9585bdd4484dff4cef4d4ac406efd52977a8c4
90460 F20101201_AACVJZ leko_m_Page_091.jpg
7e02435d5ebe42947e23985a311f55d7
4c9eeca0e650afcca95bcb9a91971db63fbcda67
6900 F20101201_AACVLC leko_m_Page_169thm.jpg
aed77db2482f401666efaac07436eec5
bc6648456e08b3c5102eb5e2dc88cb102234ad49
865662 F20101201_AACVKO leko_m_Page_189.jp2
e484d006afdb2183b9fa095345be5452
d5b890e445470ba53661679e7eb0fea085ace81b
33926 F20101201_AACVLD leko_m_Page_158.jpg
e69cb6bd19f1058862dcc4a9c2f9a33f
db827b0ccca7e039bd98e9898e0a11e97bf99489
6631 F20101201_AACVKP leko_m_Page_152thm.jpg
8ac49f249d1270464d4150440a642119
83c092cb3fa46cdc621aae98a681c1f2e18f405a
82784 F20101201_AACVLE leko_m_Page_025.jpg
094e4b460271758dbfc07c4577715e77
dac7bb2fe1c8f20346dfdb6b4b4be94b760a0f6e
28472 F20101201_AACVKQ leko_m_Page_123.QC.jpg
ec60fe104811879f0f634306be95dd7e
560b82a2076fcd17b6198354be400c63ae289f82
92658 F20101201_AACVLF leko_m_Page_013.jpg
c91858720d9591b4bffee90af35381ac
dc59e4cbbe37a475e8f669712549f9a85992f3df
16572 F20101201_AACVKR leko_m_Page_184.QC.jpg
f6d0e7e421242de35b4779de2f60d5fc
59787968389b40082d0a495f17d1386f7c7ec24d
28594 F20101201_AACVLG leko_m_Page_129.QC.jpg
4cf18d1f78fe5cfc3d8acc47992d50af
a490c1769fe3efca47650aaa78518416ab3e1e51
92971 F20101201_AACVKS leko_m_Page_200.jpg
0f9c900390fb712354e1387864d0eb0e
eaf0b565768f888c9725e866468d32d0a92071c2
26474 F20101201_AACVLH leko_m_Page_163.QC.jpg
fad35369d1d26bc4fc9e151673e2ca54
8a9dcc5e2db8d0e371c1ae9708b0bca1cc8cb207
6943 F20101201_AACVKT leko_m_Page_123thm.jpg
517cbabc37263307c3050ac0de7f4dcd
e1d6168939e9ee66964cb5cea38503e7fe86205b
26731 F20101201_AACVLI leko_m_Page_058.QC.jpg
90d6078d43144859bba3d57cd46d5fb8
bc487f5c0dfa168f557f8fcf64f40c6b993ad6d1
25432 F20101201_AACVKU leko_m_Page_054.QC.jpg
43f5779980cf196927990f6055bec31b
bce5e5bf800aa142929b9477a8c1f101331270d9
91575 F20101201_AACVLJ leko_m_Page_115.jpg
14ee74d487d7889211846ae2040bd63a
ad9ca4ccecd650e0b6a7fec7f729752542b0505a
F20101201_AACVKV leko_m_Page_062.tif
d46ddbfec51a6b645bc689fd9360f90b
d6e4abcf1c0b578fa582b5e4529ab4ad31d34ae2
24681 F20101201_AACVLK leko_m_Page_004.QC.jpg
d9d1fc9b9825e0dd587e7ac022dece14
30dd4257ce2e92e47af6758b010146ddc52ad423
1051968 F20101201_AACVKW leko_m_Page_151.jp2
b81f696708e32b04f7d8fc01033e421f
768cbe7b94e8333f2153a4a3a21cee64068d78f8
87917 F20101201_AACVLL leko_m_Page_092.jpg
6a2f69a3d0c8615e72f61fadaf619bb7
c7cb5a4c357bbc9efa3d985c00da76a2774ff037
28897 F20101201_AACVKX leko_m_Page_102.QC.jpg
7fae9a383494c57f87d64d5505c42e5f
d78cc1bd89ab27f07e5b2eef44197f094fbaf7b9
1051983 F20101201_AACVLM leko_m_Page_052.jp2
c6b559d2403a474882a72a9c6bc4d6e2
c3f4ef9367ba06c11b575c565fce3edf0731bb30
6857 F20101201_AACVKY leko_m_Page_147thm.jpg
7aa533608d0f0021799f2f16707ea171
173a364bc67fc9dcc9a9b86ba4a96a95bc715db3
92429 F20101201_AACVMA leko_m_Page_045.jpg
9672936c290544f763f7c344dc5a998b
1cf84bc04fd2406a96fcde919d608824f993ddc9
11139 F20101201_AACVLN leko_m_Page_193.QC.jpg
fdffe5d5c5f6ef9c0079ffec007d9d97
1583afcb161ba0179de8b91198e73ffb6d7645b7
22458 F20101201_AACVKZ leko_m_Page_009.jpg
e2bb2a554701f18097bd64a358282d30
82a399e428cbfad40dcfb89293dc95e182108b7e
6645 F20101201_AACVMB leko_m_Page_117thm.jpg
2ac364c9fc1960c1e79fc703a5cf3761
bb132445da02b72aee845de61c08c90fc71f729d
88952 F20101201_AACVLO leko_m_Page_097.jpg
13f3b123dd39c47a74a1e02b347a83eb
a9961a086ce0c829646cd0553eb111c294058fcf
F20101201_AACVMC leko_m_Page_066.tif
6c3439679898a9e7ff0caf08e21c9677
af24d06f6271a2962da15091095d41f250fa94ce
6825 F20101201_AACVLP leko_m_Page_124thm.jpg
b37d4fe8af831ca66e646b963265bbf5
149ab23cff0fde38e6bd17010c688e43e2e615bd
36727 F20101201_AACVMD leko_m_Page_133.jpg
72f02d116c6987efcfc3ef2c951eaf72
81eddfdc382f6c022236cadc5d3209594d0c511d
1051972 F20101201_AACVLQ leko_m_Page_034.jp2
b62f5dda133830e8099adf80cb1bf529
10141c9b80deead53571257c8122ea7359a52252
83598 F20101201_AACVME leko_m_Page_031.jpg
2768d160ef8265ee63758f53ad78aea7
22711b217b5c81b522be8b8fbe1a03c807f6e51a
547958 F20101201_AACVLR leko_m_Page_194.jp2
716f0a34e5dd3b8d14377a902585b0ea
3a3c234b56c1244c52750ccd0e02727b1d477121
9521 F20101201_AACVMF leko_m_Page_157.jpg
3d42dce3c611dd4f61e9553fba98bc10
8d9e5e0eb37b35332176104b824564db4aec46fd
28996 F20101201_AACVLS leko_m_Page_079.QC.jpg
680471c75b30ddced2d1b65d8f61c34d
d9da2b7185184d6082385f714777994f5d264310
94347 F20101201_AACVMG leko_m_Page_094.jpg
992efb729fec0da5fa989e5acf44d372
18ef3d170892cb93bc1df2db5f2d4b1a34c10903
28040 F20101201_AACVLT leko_m_Page_072.QC.jpg
3ca0dbc5e83d1acadb4dbeaedc349d10
d9760bf30d24c929a73d1a1477347b5a51576af6
6834 F20101201_AACVMH leko_m_Page_196.QC.jpg
358a357d24d2555630b7efaa16dcdbbf
a8e36a9f223e84543ec2622afbde5a9e891b9a17
F20101201_AACVLU leko_m_Page_184.tif
87cc8e0c7973a0e47199fd151c291f0c
ac351b2bbc9fd2c9bf006061086d6711cf45e2f0
28184 F20101201_AACVMI leko_m_Page_113.QC.jpg
c610dfa84d660a54cad9f9506d7fc9cb
f7b152adbad2c08e8e1380363d3a11b7d941b7c5
1051958 F20101201_AACVLV leko_m_Page_162.jp2
68402b73336e5452da2a4d5da0092fe2
bf5bb3d5aed69886c549b44316e32b69420fa888
1051963 F20101201_AACVMJ leko_m_Page_044.jp2
cd8de3abea20f9aa77ba689d8a514475
87ee1207752514fa1c6d8a25c08ac9702172e3ac
7901 F20101201_AACVLW leko_m_Page_179.QC.jpg
b2f1aa7808ba362cf0193fb837cc6037
de27d627a1b5e40fc62ac824a6aa1d02f43a0314
F20101201_AACVMK leko_m_Page_037.tif
b55340ea0a0a593af6fe4149dc79be43
8957893b96c4cda0d6c1239f9f43c808020f8873
6644 F20101201_AACVLX leko_m_Page_063thm.jpg
069faaa3ff5e350060c597ce1ac4b0d2
1b291a90ead2dad25adc2a648ca114ff4958673c
93004 F20101201_AACVML leko_m_Page_172.jpg
d67d5b8786c899392b26590d57babf5d
edfbe314b282f1b3b4c52b380828503498705c44
F20101201_AACVLY leko_m_Page_015.tif
25f8178aad2bd1f919f4770b498c808f
ab872c36bcce3ecd70bc8b869c612311ac1cbacc
94366 F20101201_AACVNA leko_m_Page_169.jpg
d5e5ab6f9102d20e2f4a33a6d0b09a74
8cd09afd8f08c8c532da30b48fc5d1694f20a377
6653 F20101201_AACVMM leko_m_Page_140thm.jpg
19b426fd7afcc42f90b93081a5a62c0d
cdd716e08e957870ccbc2c678026c99c366bf2de
6703 F20101201_AACVLZ leko_m_Page_205thm.jpg
5e6294e136a6ee15682566839a312a0d
dfb7168dc6233867fab81609b5c5da3cafb1eb6e
28762 F20101201_AACVNB leko_m_Page_150.QC.jpg
3953414b47a73a800c8d1f54f1a362f7
acab692c18f967ab867e157efa5981f86b322d4b
1051948 F20101201_AACVMN leko_m_Page_005.jp2
beabe8229d66e426aa45c8b85e63981a
a53be3db6f91057aa2d7e83e6d3d290ba753dd36
94156 F20101201_AACVNC leko_m_Page_089.jpg
44ec38d1615afb01da8abab3eb2006d7
64ce1a6a7df24c74fb1a50353607eda8c08c60dc
1051906 F20101201_AACVMO leko_m_Page_143.jp2
621ed28f937835e8acd293159ecbae59
e71b761f533a89dedda09d928894d24bb707666b
28257 F20101201_AACVND leko_m_Page_002.jp2
dc5a52c34be7ec55324e62d5870340dd
37a3c3476340252edf4eb202f1d72f3455d8c023
6920 F20101201_AACVMP leko_m_Page_082thm.jpg
8ef65962a8001eac0b241b54bead476c
704370c30cb9ec332d1da42e650763766f754f31
1051974 F20101201_AACVNE leko_m_Page_069.jp2
cd97cbdd6de10d791f4240d2505fd0cd
52aae78c3dffd2f57e908b004a1f6f556b26ffcf
1051975 F20101201_AACVMQ leko_m_Page_098.jp2
21541879a0d73c16dcb8c5d6033537f4
63c8962f8bf926c1d541b7f02d927397c600c336
27409 F20101201_AACVNF leko_m_Page_138.QC.jpg
dd2ec8094769db3424c82cfc0c23b172
ef89014c4ecac3492f4aced7cd1b732869ead70c
12933 F20101201_AACVMR leko_m_Page_183.QC.jpg
285f1a369e4594e5d40a819679424328
cfae89db13bda9545ed08cb3ef836a27e2ca6137
914139 F20101201_AACVNG leko_m_Page_083.jp2
f34f4787b35b82de9035dfcbbcf103e9
de8326d6939a53b84b20de4b6d9b38afa260059a
F20101201_AACVMS leko_m_Page_080.tif
57c280354d2ee579b058271c893e4462
56a220c86a7af45e810d5f1719292775cdeb9d46
F20101201_AACVNH leko_m_Page_123.tif
36fd151f52818a13fea542253f3fca50
397c64392c58c3a15dd31586a34278c16fb77902
F20101201_AACVMT leko_m_Page_204.jp2
e6c8ec1886aec394a56435768eeaabd6
8a929bfb093e13c3b3facaa14cdb645aecdf2fe5
6722 F20101201_AACVNI leko_m_Page_100thm.jpg
793112ba791ae0bc33f2a7334f44e7d7
e35365667f8db24afc20393f22be935af49291eb
657125 F20101201_AACVMU leko_m_Page_086.jp2
a5b551763bd3fcca05fc5e1087c023aa
172534247a28d66de81b1d1723701bf304edd9d6
1114 F20101201_AACVNJ leko_m_Page_002.QC.jpg
64f7f651c05510e964d41bfc88967471
35c08e92e154a3c5cd21a4570f1c8cfa733c28f5
F20101201_AACVMV leko_m_Page_040.tif
337e7bea9d9cf2eba1ddf2bc9ef56e16
cd6bcd8647d649de6824ad1a92493f11ad285fa4
F20101201_AACVNK leko_m_Page_167.tif
acd53f04974b2eb534ced5f92fe2c5b0
9104a99b2a73c49a8bdcfe5fb791305f874b20b0
26814 F20101201_AACVMW leko_m_Page_164.QC.jpg
fd329932e01908a20b8059d46521ce4a
92e46ebe22a8baddce617ea80b308ed65d1fc1fe
F20101201_AACVNL leko_m_Page_033.tif
cb517425ec845738b11f4b875ada1bc2
49a85a45179565871cd0c540a6f142da4c5badfe
6766 F20101201_AACVMX leko_m_Page_047thm.jpg
1d5c8dcddd2a3f2f882dd0dd7d87bf7c
e1785dda34e122596340f5b53a91b0927b783622
1051978 F20101201_AACVOA leko_m_Page_048.jp2
4d8b51610860b0db10362b5a0ff62e81
26b2bf3050a88b90a788676e9b91226c22bca0f2
4349 F20101201_AACVNM leko_m_Page_029thm.jpg
adae93bb84ad1578eade4aea8d057fc8
a99cd3f8f393593d12b162f67fd18ede77146110
87254 F20101201_AACVMY leko_m_Page_017.jpg
296021a95b39f574707a82b5eb50de56
3636e8642cf548437d227bdfa0cf019daed846c7
31657 F20101201_AACVNN leko_m_Page_181.QC.jpg
c774107bbb2915258e0d40b805b0c8fa
835b34e707e5fa6490116b859e6d0be24ef34cf0
6485 F20101201_AACVMZ leko_m_Page_060thm.jpg
b07815db9fc213e00ffb8c8e372b7e7d
0958e8566400699e266ced40b49e0003eccb411f
29264 F20101201_AACVOB leko_m_Page_089.QC.jpg
927ffe9ebc1a71ecf127585b6bd7ac7c
c79cb6f5fe9c09a092bc0e1174bdfcd37b638db9
F20101201_AACVNO leko_m_Page_070.tif
c23c387d922513f85467e68adfbe516b
34591cf3b73f7776162fed0beded92a61b310e58
4358 F20101201_AACVOC leko_m_Page_191thm.jpg
9db2dbb9367151f9c918ea3c7b6203ff
0021e599223043dd9c74477ee27580a180fec5c4
1051954 F20101201_AACVNP leko_m_Page_101.jp2
1202833a8498383aaca27f971025f3d4
e05c0aa4c966f3d24890d00049963f0d1194d87d
F20101201_AACVOD leko_m_Page_141.tif
ac21d3bf998a04f5e16f74f7efb50c1b
7ef2873c15e3e598643e5410657b949377da8879
1051923 F20101201_AACVNQ leko_m_Page_082.jp2
1752638b69bec6c5d6d664568bbbbe04
21593dd6fb485a6569e314511caa72c45a1bc080
1051971 F20101201_AACVOE leko_m_Page_058.jp2
f97de9374d7cd2c7a4bfd6a4201e3c72
14bb52913f514fd1567b60868e360cba77725ba0
F20101201_AACVNR leko_m_Page_024.tif
0dde3539003c5ffec34afaa724cad07a
420685c7a129894277ceddc5e919853c8db717d9
6593 F20101201_AACVOF leko_m_Page_093thm.jpg
8cb3495df496ce3e1ccc2dbbfe3d8595
74bbb9f078cfd01d3d65592bf5a4cabfe329882b
F20101201_AACVNS leko_m_Page_077.tif
c714a019259176eea3e2741edf1f1f62
6c02c6709baaa5f6e875d8c1e2646e11caa20fe6
18468 F20101201_AACVOG leko_m_Page_190.QC.jpg
7cea989b9a3552b7eddcc4eac5ab8e7f
c1dab1c60d4c8b1db30a0f5cf65424043aefb24b
6599 F20101201_AACVNT leko_m_Page_073thm.jpg
bcd13ec3ab24e9c279307dd3d24c9361
513106b924f709bce8d70014e5530f03cda2a77a
1883 F20101201_AACVOH leko_m_Page_196thm.jpg
7c52b028ae7dba6823a9510c802d60f4
e2b8f609ba207cf5fffd3b522a8c77def74c1cbe
29203 F20101201_AACVNU leko_m_Page_033.QC.jpg
1e9fcf231d117d209987bebcb02ddb23
feea5597cfadd88a6269e522bff31cdfc47ffc42
80741 F20101201_AACVOI leko_m_Page_004.jpg
7bd85d8cdfa32eb4fbe50b3eb987d0fb
94c90eef2e0003e120cff4cd206255905a63ef97
F20101201_AACVNV leko_m_Page_097.jp2
4e0066040699a05508609400f214f8a2
617ef30f76ebcabc1ec707f704aef7ddef9c16cb
92677 F20101201_AACVOJ leko_m_Page_034.jpg
043f7f3b0bb1ddff44ba1b129e89165a
b36bd10e3547ba2631983a9509af5895ebf0af15
28468 F20101201_AACVNW leko_m_Page_198.QC.jpg
93f0d67f7b5a02b013439620c53bd18c
9274420a7d1d322aafb4d1b8d099e8b67d7fedda
29987 F20101201_AACVOK leko_m_Page_140.QC.jpg
5deab4c5706eac7b4f4d4c8a43a5a811
0810985bad53d5c3bab91e339119f463f186233a
6299 F20101201_AACVNX leko_m_Page_069thm.jpg
36d7abc3a443085130a7dad0c3bbef02
a0806c51c21bbe06d88be166493be3b0ea7d968a
2678 F20101201_AACVPA leko_m_Page_177thm.jpg
ac7683ebc5203f9b140899f0893355cd
656cb18325498c9c9e4a6d50d3709edac2389125
F20101201_AACVOL leko_m_Page_158.tif
a1f1b850f9c98753e3127b043729e64e
a8767220f5194476ee225ef0198c01e19fbf044d
F20101201_AACVNY leko_m_Page_066.jp2
6a710bcfe3e55e8f6ba75c3a09ee2483
089c3f499a259472507a3e47d389fa2937e3bbaf
6792 F20101201_AACVPB leko_m_Page_102thm.jpg
f0b7f9bda553c5d3ffa0949549c11cc2
9f3561c1d09c1122fd8296dbf4898e865185c55d
2873 F20101201_AACVOM leko_m_Page_195thm.jpg
b2e57ffe075ebcd01db242fa08d86435
dd08b554fa0aad60f47507cffb9b2bd07e6d83b8
916509 F20101201_AACVNZ leko_m_Page_190.jp2
ffab3c7db0c8e065654327e07bfab787
3ee61d82cb45e95c9dfd08b7360e72193961397d
27645 F20101201_AACVON leko_m_Page_144.QC.jpg
d5f1b538368b2b9c4bc95214a128984d
c0b7c0050acddd82634a6b1909c44e7aa968ddbb
87179 F20101201_AACVPC leko_m_Page_081.jpg
41112a063762964fe3a11f7feb93bdc6
a72420c47d9e83af30496b88b7fd9463714287a1
F20101201_AACVOO leko_m_Page_204.tif
7266e4502f04b3fcc4f84099aa7388dc
4f8f11d4b967bf9c7a88b4ec71bfdf1fb039e784
1051969 F20101201_AACVPD leko_m_Page_166.jp2
49fb7ac9813d28150e1c911c4ff0b6db
4d144d46287c2c6abdbe1ed06780b1e7e307eb21
1051950 F20101201_AACVOP leko_m_Page_164.jp2
dd4109f9f92dc8ae1857f57c45c8bedd
62c3ce4a2a92be0b736ba4d90e95f25eeb485fb6
F20101201_AACVPE leko_m_Page_082.tif
a0cbe89a95e9a927f391692513b00dfd
4493230b8045f62c8b2b210f9329b70fcf20f391
F20101201_AACVOQ leko_m_Page_049.jp2
06b3b0f497f6feaad8d7267d235a8564
c54cf76ceea5b9c5545001683baa248b24c6fe29
6416 F20101201_AACVPF leko_m_Page_025thm.jpg
90073643abd99e730d14e8b810419cde
e26a610cc61c431c92b7f55ec5db438afce55f7d
F20101201_AACVOR leko_m_Page_159.tif
af768d8d869f5d41e1fb433511a3d63a
6aa9c4e214864143b83c45d5062fd4f50e740e4a
10228 F20101201_AACVPG leko_m_Page_134.QC.jpg
a0252d963ebc825392c0a9b14872b3c3
3ac025ea7526e487ec83c2d25ef675ce4cc56149
6845 F20101201_AACVOS leko_m_Page_155thm.jpg
504330f4fe812cb3eaa70c7a9205e991
e0dfbd6bf6cb5fda6dd84a6822fcdaef1029bd88
85561 F20101201_AACVPH leko_m_Page_051.jpg
81c14f36eb8d0d5b574642a556c2109e
f681a204f9bfc10d7b91905e0f223424cc4a05ed
87114 F20101201_AACVOT leko_m_Page_144.jpg
f9b07b05d6652382b1c6de39d27bb8f8
b5454035e9065379051bb739e32b82955a29ea5d
F20101201_AACVPI leko_m_Page_068thm.jpg
2943706ac49cc8c6f54009e44b5504ff
f8b97d3556f1c9913217ca9ba586bc3daa101204
F20101201_AACVOU leko_m_Page_129.tif
54f4e0ec3be90a56f939536b772c52e0
c12b99e3dd1269e27d3100428bad4ed440f54ddb
27865 F20101201_AACVPJ leko_m_Page_030.QC.jpg
188e487f5ebe90f2e1f987e630bac382
165c380d0c2970f412ae9e0386b3c90d67f4ac32
3200 F20101201_AACVOV leko_m_Page_022thm.jpg
a5c64057113f7a61eefdbd7f494d704b
4f15a52d33deb7232ac7dab8db6e983c86e12659
F20101201_AACVPK leko_m_Page_169.jp2
4a3073d3164229a68997e10e3279cd1c
4149e9e3b5f3594b998197188d3be9d90fc71ca2
27180 F20101201_AACVOW leko_m_Page_090.QC.jpg
e374c1f4e8aa0c3d275e37136da91126
ae4cc63e40515161e75cfcd9444d2e59bade2872
F20101201_AACVQA leko_m_Page_017.tif
2e736d395739377e6896e51f07d3103a
7c44e603d7b5690b304dd7715df588d4763443b1
F20101201_AACVPL leko_m_Page_041.tif
cd118e27341c478416016304fb52c6c6
0df16bc93f71e45aeae77ed49580be6c1cb653a3
F20101201_AACVOX leko_m_Page_054.tif
cc91aa5293e21975c9e5f47dee9952d2
ce77ccbd0e17d0a8c241cb1d308b977ff2ffa342
F20101201_AACVQB leko_m_Page_075.tif
8a4200f9de0b2230dc0229c441515c86
f50ffa11d58c75249b41665f801550a609379e82
F20101201_AACVPM leko_m_Page_096.tif
56cba82a7190e643fd399382acc89b07
7702b05f9ebb7d50849e11aa0e8c1a09c49493ad
6768 F20101201_AACVOY leko_m_Page_014thm.jpg
96b4a6c482cc7de00c0064875e6707a7
bf21ab6960448476ab1174d93a2854695bef7cf2
F20101201_AACVQC leko_m_Page_031.tif
a56b28e1a60505e4858ef3e19a393784
f74e24a9036538fe90877836d8143855a19bcacf
F20101201_AACVPN leko_m_Page_065.tif
87f449643e871b7b4d770d1a04cae65b
79b083652240cb46bdfebbb5bb106de15f2283e7
3787 F20101201_AACVOZ leko_m_Page_002.jpg
a8424862b96eb40f68289f78744e807e
99391de2e5326b55fc4d8cb8ea4c68dcf4d568a4
79831 F20101201_AACVPO leko_m_Page_026.jpg
7eb4b15162d8afebf8523ce58a6e9076
354f31376e3b3be7f0128ef48d0b90bdc0bfe9eb
F20101201_AACVQD leko_m_Page_053.tif
ed3a2bd36f19069ef3e5aebdeb8725cc
3789d3e2c6711e220a35ce8304a942d25d2c466a
803930 F20101201_AACVPP leko_m_Page_191.jp2
08f61e0c9fbc57f6cf6fe1a40a8e7cc6
e7b97722e1e04afb76a08cd806393e4d006e1c58
28180 F20101201_AACVQE leko_m_Page_166.QC.jpg
4c6c34b011a1dfc111bb60159edb84e2
70b48646867af2406592562f8e4959b65d06c44b
1051973 F20101201_AACVPQ leko_m_Page_125.jp2
7050476676881a055e3885227b7230d5
6160458eda16c30f0b96ef15a33dd6a0f3e78b2f
6885 F20101201_AACVQF leko_m_Page_200thm.jpg
da65ef06a99cc018777710c49232d27d
fb1005e66fa8b1a0b0bff2a008679d28b8687407
27469 F20101201_AACVPR leko_m_Page_016.QC.jpg
f48cfa1d27f25f20eb26e52bda08a5bd
f999426383264d7772961212970080801ccd18ed
85068 F20101201_AACVQG leko_m_Page_070.jpg
391a6bd870d24384f96b013873202d6f
8082ac8a0b57116bb0d21b15683913ecfa98ae63
F20101201_AACVPS leko_m_Page_097.tif
1f2ac0ca4a9ac2a38adc44b532f43351
af4d7c70fe4b621f675948a11bb9d3bd632f2da1
F20101201_AACVQH leko_m_Page_200.tif
8032f37d4a04b90647d81f8f000af556
60eea99bfab4616a038d7947d937d524a2c130cc
40291 F20101201_AACVPT leko_m_Page_135.jpg
31c1760734c9833fa0e310a3681fa310
be56fa5d250342618a938c77208b95cc0646af80
F20101201_AACVQI leko_m_Page_012.tif
c1fecdce306185c26111a2fe93daf149
f4a6fb964388cfb7e1f1d867bb1bf8f58153eedc
6223 F20101201_AACVPU leko_m_Page_004thm.jpg
fdaf6cebe1d7124e36a61eb43037882e
84c566407ab48ebc28a508b8039ba86ec40acf02
29051 F20101201_AACVQJ leko_m_Page_045.QC.jpg
f7b8165ff9f55f461783c6472c91a184
eda247a98183a2dade7b404c43ca1345459609ed
6876 F20101201_AACVPV leko_m_Page_108thm.jpg
d2eaeefbc64627cc79a9406557c50e9f
a6e0f6f3fe7c2732ed2d6aedb703dc6bb132f105
F20101202_AAAAAA leko_m_Page_165.tif
4a93984a6946e9f1c735ca0236aa297c
d57ec8579dbb5c50457cb9e8987adbd511fe21f9
28641 F20101201_AACVQK leko_m_Page_142.QC.jpg
7cf15044a240936ae65a305314a18cff
3514dc36f2381e83e7998d31904322874c1d0b37
30010 F20101201_AACVPW leko_m_Page_146.QC.jpg
b56cd4717f5047b03c6c06d971512bd1
d6f6db22f6a986308b2b92f9a6f8399a0cc12161
F20101202_AAAAAB leko_m_Page_168.tif
7fc6fcb37b36eaebe687342f8f2dd06c
bdb0c0aeeff7a7ee3cf79176b8e6d2fcc3cb5ae8
F20101201_AACVQL leko_m_Page_149.tif
8c33bdce806f01536867d16e963f3a2d
ca23c71e52fa9ba49c8dc3ab4977220fe74ab703
95295 F20101201_AACVPX leko_m_Page_107.jpg
a188a1f745396486cb93c7f0a65705f3
2a20c356f5226cb87bc588ab079df86077572bc7
27198 F20101201_AACVRA leko_m_Page_092.QC.jpg
8c534edaa883c30602c5129493fdac90
78c714fccf82116d3518adba4728b8368c10802f
F20101202_AAAAAC leko_m_Page_169.tif
a43defee94e92d199d7e418969cf8b28
ebad8a2d8f1387673fc2a1bb57dc852226f5646f
6748 F20101201_AACVQM leko_m_Page_181thm.jpg
c8065e1633ca0ec1a2dbf52bc7b11d12
7f8a2c1259e6233fdefa788f01e175ce6f4f6a4b
F20101201_AACVPY leko_m_Page_042.jp2
4f6f898b78aefd2a0fb8cc06998c6a05
1f67017ddd00a7caa43826041bbabf71dd8ca7b0
1051946 F20101201_AACVRB leko_m_Page_063.jp2
f61f76bb8831a23baba361370f008c8c
b9eceb513c279f17923f6313c79e937431f4885e
F20101202_AAAAAD leko_m_Page_172.tif
bff4d8bf5fc5f7a9cef7755b9ad65d49
9fa77d801d70362404ca43e93c28e5dcea1b3176
201325 F20101201_AACVQN leko_m_Page_021.jp2
3d7348669a3dcd0fb8e3d5f4393e7acd
ba402beab9c6b0c8d30f51629179b02c8e99e4c6
98933 F20101201_AACVPZ leko_m_Page_157.jp2
d7a76e9e69c6eac7be2c7846baa086a8
b95a81b4f1a76e5e74ae2b62929f996142794e8c
F20101201_AACVRC leko_m_Page_074.tif
64716e98fed979da499a72b29098e305
5ed965978687f2cb7b5fcb07faa9c79689524db7
F20101202_AAAAAE leko_m_Page_173.tif
b01676727d126056418a5c260b865763
d9a9cac84c09e6c028aca673a38c2ceb2d876427
9405 F20101201_AACVQO leko_m_Page_159.QC.jpg
8636835d0a632bc546e0c5476a5fddfb
93086064a92c10bf3f7262d2929461f9f894d301
F20101201_AACVRD leko_m_Page_018.jp2
8e342f2ff2c00fdcfba063a72c72aa4b
03fffdaca61b91b4d7790b790b8bfd10f2e5a013
F20101202_AAAAAF leko_m_Page_174.tif
b152e761e3b709de104b3b1a54949388
62e9dcc5b6af3d46543e679b8893887d6c394ad5
91759 F20101201_AACVQP leko_m_Page_141.jpg
0711ef4d415903506bfeecdaeb5be2de
85b2079a8d75f2f5951cae8afd83ee322e8a6c00
F20101202_AAAAAG leko_m_Page_175.tif
a022e594965fc19045c769b5a90f962e
65db7935d3f211ff3f2c71fbf9c4ce6a49eb3e63
6628 F20101201_AACVQQ leko_m_Page_180thm.jpg
cce41635ec4e5d6c06dd1e99d43df734
9ced0fb037313e615f3de8028a5649c50b3a87ec
5957 F20101201_AACVRE leko_m_Page_207thm.jpg
7a0bf43c455f187d7e0a75a436ea94d0
bc438b986ba8e2b2bde540793287733954931f96
27032 F20101201_AACVQR leko_m_Page_094.QC.jpg
a5dfa1cc84fef1f136ab9e97fd95d5d3
0007f412b16ff028b38ddb8c236d777cc1ecfdf1
3385 F20101201_AACVRF leko_m_Page_157.QC.jpg
168e45ed0e32cd300bb9972264e3ba60
698f2b2aceb13a33b0fc9559fed3364145a02e55
F20101202_AAAAAH leko_m_Page_176.tif
098e2c375f980504d27a23d1b77895d3
66b3ec595049e7390eb326db186c3622dd3fdf0b
35195 F20101201_AACVQS leko_m_Page_178.QC.jpg
cf29860758beba1de304a27e559d9274
13cd0796ed098013f0c0e8bfdcac87742281e4d0
F20101201_AACVRG leko_m_Page_120.jp2
4e8ee8d4c0613f1ef0c1009aa119ff55
abbc1f251a58cbb873a1a2c0851fb4fb75c12347
F20101202_AAAAAI leko_m_Page_179.tif
f7c192dc947684bb00659678553411cd
5f64084a36144d846d22eda0badccff499b179dd
28604 F20101201_AACVQT leko_m_Page_047.QC.jpg
36b59737bd465c7844e8496af993e422
1e93b966d47992dc102ab43a1c36a25aa46526b4
F20101201_AACVRH leko_m_Page_107.jp2
928e94bfbf53d649c49dc266ffa58c7c
4ddecc717f014666dd03e29bd1bbc0ecb57d78c1
F20101202_AAAAAJ leko_m_Page_182.tif
ee50376864bcc2a9658a36df48c23023
138e1cc0376824168a85dd9b9a6474f1efe835c3
F20101201_AACVQU leko_m_Page_077.jp2
1153d8fc9feca0abb5ec87c10a6312f9
c5ec48666d156a2e57ba35600df29bfbf8cb8ca7
F20101201_AACVRI leko_m_Page_093.jp2
f718a7761ee4a08ce97a93f49f69b351
c0a5129e9106f95e5653790d2147d7fe42661d7d
F20101202_AAAAAK leko_m_Page_183.tif
321b118e90a098af05605d0f29ca3266
f18b61898118082636ffb460b3257191e35fa1b4
32922 F20101201_AACVQV leko_m_Page_053.jpg
bad1efcac8461a0a9c8d305256b0fc10
558627daf43768e6160b45827b16abd30486a09d
1051970 F20101201_AACVRJ leko_m_Page_070.jp2
bb727d8a6f33240bee3d27d4d5b92cf4
d2b919592dcf7d7085b2d0fc8adc6f2215f0f2ff
F20101202_AAAABA leko_m_Page_205.tif
c517713423716ec22d71b79865c2a0c4
367f636d6feb9323057ff51ffada59219767c8eb
F20101202_AAAAAL leko_m_Page_185.tif
938673cd32e6832f32cdf8af50bba9e1
41a221b7eb128d5b86a1f18c15a4503a9135d4ce
3089 F20101201_AACVQW leko_m_Page_135thm.jpg
5e26610d83e1b02cb82d43cff4e90915
abc8ba6da710c91598228efaf9b28d1a0a95503d
F20101201_AACVRK leko_m_Page_051.tif
1a7aaa655df2ffd2dddf88f7212abc2f
65e452057e18653133dc46bce089aac6dc08ec2f
F20101202_AAAABB leko_m_Page_207.tif
1f3e25f877e2569851207c39ec266a44
1ea5080f9252cee2fbfd62773ae0a5084d56fb1d
F20101202_AAAAAM leko_m_Page_186.tif
a8ad085334374fe1768b85281b052f61
8f705551a78763e8b232da0b4f6d70ba1a793726
F20101201_AACVSA leko_m_Page_178.tif
48212bc6e20c6587191e5a35785605ce
1daecbb693bf3029aa38e26382e72d094ca88bb6
85015 F20101201_AACVRL leko_m_Page_058.jpg
527dd33b4c93b29eaeb174be9d7e0372
a7dbd87758896f6afa752572681f45b4347c864e
28829 F20101201_AACVQX leko_m_Page_100.QC.jpg
352b12f2909e4a70f8da5025a77171cf
9ffc7ecfe1f544204eedcb1165bed503f5f51f16
7983 F20101202_AAAABC leko_m_Page_001.QC.jpg
d87acaa3f682401a76dbf80bbfc0d5b5
880b977814482d6600c6c21c83d466888c4ce1b8
F20101202_AAAAAN leko_m_Page_188.tif
5068300b7c8932b54fd716766465731e
38022eb3757354854f402c90baca6d6a5fe4a8fc
1051965 F20101201_AACVSB leko_m_Page_015.jp2
e4702dda6216f7c680955510c850c7e5
12459d6a258ceedf4b0628e9f498bef8474ae329
6482 F20101201_AACVRM leko_m_Page_110thm.jpg
3368e6a6c07a7ecd61cbe93e366b1f0e
145ee5084790034cce937be87941d7cf2d793c27
1038 F20101201_AACVQY leko_m_Page_176thm.jpg
dab3a4bf93db283d5f01af1dcad1215f
47de6e5bee73ac5a9f0d02faa8362390c827b16e
1344 F20101202_AAAABD leko_m_Page_003.QC.jpg
a5acb29675574be19438445f3005a000
047ac6e45fc039b1c2d1b62a68f631e0ac74e294
F20101202_AAAAAO leko_m_Page_190.tif
76b397d201714ffa908e807a9bcf8397
9742b0aa7356d22d469570037b24299560b521c9
12173 F20101201_AACVSC leko_m_Page_185.QC.jpg
d03763602e59d002c03de30780655693
7cf1f12981dc5b7bf05c5fb764d7ca0f4a60e053
91929 F20101201_AACVRN leko_m_Page_105.jpg
4813d27e7dcf3e76c2e1b33f446453b1
62e51c9213ac9c18bf729e4c4e7d2a2f5ee2a420
F20101201_AACVQZ leko_m_Page_154.tif
72d00d383c6942436e8ba9686f31251f
a7e1d7a55ec33c5d5e283c9926daa8e6c116165d
28321 F20101202_AAAABE leko_m_Page_005.QC.jpg
eec75b4065ac26b7e6c579dc4a43443e
e20dbb01b3a9998183e1202b1cbedf28f6aae5cd
F20101202_AAAAAP leko_m_Page_192.tif
6720ac03629e5101bab5b1a1e59437d4
20c7d9c3b7cedb00d2a4bad1632de9baa98f62d5
F20101201_AACVSD leko_m_Page_108.jp2
991b86d2f59870d2917babda30fab3e6
289f3a3c4463c081c74399b554f9471da8e8381f
28268 F20101201_AACVRO leko_m_Page_143.QC.jpg
d5d2df890b87c4731c783de2b07ad151
8e159ef3d680f4c76d9e8e91237d769810565d6a
6851 F20101202_AAAABF leko_m_Page_005thm.jpg
314c130a684d1a730bbcd5199cc05285
e01c12bb992d9d77bae1aaf9bb249f52545976ae
F20101202_AAAAAQ leko_m_Page_193.tif
458acdcfe1a61b76ef27864f70dc311f
149429a87233fbcb2bfa2149848f58fa0459d30f
F20101201_AACVSE leko_m_Page_154.jp2
adb651bfd5b54761481bcfbad1b6299f
2b75446e83ae1ec945e58a42e09ffd97ca29a95d
F20101201_AACVRP leko_m_Page_073.jp2
0053f676b1668025d3bb66996288a7f1
9aed0e895d8bbfd074d7408f08bf1944fcff4f86
19032 F20101202_AAAABG leko_m_Page_006.QC.jpg
d1b6f6653d211595575b53619329bf82
c211e376fb83db6389a73e465db71548632cabb9
F20101202_AAAAAR leko_m_Page_194.tif
285b332a77339e54d282a432165bae9f
1e7acbb56b889f03b633cc608f61e8a88638be32
90679 F20101201_AACVRQ leko_m_Page_117.jpg
a349776a6e597d2b2052bde800b7f976
45e8c835a058cb238bc4914f99b6288254e669e2
4827 F20101202_AAAABH leko_m_Page_006thm.jpg
d6d764b248f023edc8065aa4051f2392
d95270bdc6852d1648a48476f57fee1e8e32c1e4
F20101202_AAAAAS leko_m_Page_195.tif
6bce12b3cf552850994ff45bcc227192
aa69821f4fb56c07f5ff137efb29b7fae8de2776
1011563 F20101201_AACVSF leko_m_Page_206.jp2
f988640a3fe04b59668e13896516473b
bcf6c6171fdcce9cc38819fc15bd58a376d71e95
5894 F20101201_AACVRR leko_m_Page_088thm.jpg
007f1706b75c91b96d8699322911a64c
2da8fdebf7b8060e4d6ab6396490c6eaa4499a13
F20101202_AAAAAT leko_m_Page_196.tif
e451505023d1dbbac1ec6d21cabdfd3e
e90ff94d46416b315a3ff4dde23ceb3f6271490c
F20101201_AACVSG leko_m_Page_162.tif
c98861f68b9b82a598d5c164cac7df92
e47c21e92fc7f4c33bc142b9bb076404dad7b34b
6461 F20101201_AACVRS leko_m_Page_151thm.jpg
caed99b6e3da9d2a3dcdf87684a4d2f4
3a815e139fceb2cb1af58df43acf5b59cc2806fc
5168 F20101202_AAAABI leko_m_Page_007thm.jpg
19ef91361723576ed185fdfeea96810b
e6ea9bb1b0a5f92b3e9930541599d77705166ab0
F20101202_AAAAAU leko_m_Page_197.tif
6e998c63e9b1be3b1cc8ec1dcbdc88c9
45e46b3f9f18f35a4995eb41f7643648730c6c92
92138 F20101201_AACVSH leko_m_Page_047.jpg
c853d0bb78fbe9c874cbc091c53a6d70
fd57d3a836c4dce0307aa5f8acb47d4a78bc2d8d
F20101201_AACVRT leko_m_Page_003.tif
681aa633c45595a51c5a23c619e67de4
ad92502de09889fd7020f22565e9e6d6375a3bcf
1863 F20101202_AAAABJ leko_m_Page_009thm.jpg
e41134e35f779240736b60cef3d6539d
9b4be039ab24392773cecd7c3a6db316d0b19ddb
F20101202_AAAAAV leko_m_Page_198.tif
1292a68931071b0d2dc74e82087845c4
b4028b7c2e813eea60de6dc41594061a6edf4662
28482 F20101201_AACVSI leko_m_Page_091.QC.jpg
9be31f996cf16f7f5ab3bb40d2d56a3a
431e85311f3b0621505f7313988df41ccb0c79a8
F20101201_AACVRU leko_m_Page_131.jp2
d0dbfaffbf579568220784f8b4882a7d
ce06ca30c10963f2b5b52267916a7ec4c72bef02
5663 F20101202_AAAABK leko_m_Page_010.QC.jpg
ae59fb9cadb74aa243d251572edc0a86
48c7114687ef784cd76b942054c88937d642f6a1
F20101202_AAAAAW leko_m_Page_199.tif
1957196bcd5ad3e40f6eb959681f19b0
812b592344cc628d22a6fa9eb40173cd25a0b4f1
89764 F20101201_AACVSJ leko_m_Page_124.jpg
b3c3d560426ec9710338408caa2274ec
781b667854757f14ba4c93f4de547400eade2424
6407 F20101201_AACVRV leko_m_Page_175thm.jpg
8159ac155c1c58e3aa0a8b2c72b65297
6ae11ad0dfa4eae5b39916df256633363cf44b98
28553 F20101202_AAAACA leko_m_Page_023.QC.jpg
08efeb9c390d942a1e04a8337975b877
ff2ca4dbc8119bb6a827ab2911643164e144d7ca
1523 F20101202_AAAABL leko_m_Page_010thm.jpg
1c95beca580c6400c2304bf05989b118
c1b29b94ae82ab1b0de5667b516b65cc62cd8f77
F20101202_AAAAAX leko_m_Page_201.tif
eb68569d5dc0dfc58bb09341815fb895
f454ada7b2c71efd88d778cabdae1cadd4f579f7
F20101201_AACVSK leko_m_Page_055.tif
d940535037ffb26e3501223ab3cec708
d718f0533752c6f7716878ddf9f1e010ef27b7f8
13508 F20101201_AACVRW leko_m_Page_186.QC.jpg
3f4ef3bd0d638d4881dcc209cc39ea41
807ba8b88c70bdae3ef01f23c7233581e484715c
6725 F20101202_AAAACB leko_m_Page_023thm.jpg
46c3f696ee6f746c76c8568c1c3d768f
76d96eedf178c64c874e07a441c8cb5bcbcaf1cc
24489 F20101202_AAAABM leko_m_Page_011.QC.jpg
0877d6720e5231c53bdb2786d0e4b94b
36306d788c18af43d45baffcc08d3cf31805b288
F20101202_AAAAAY leko_m_Page_202.tif
027d970ad6ef7cf118e5c8e973ff410d
8bbd2b1c4ca22e747f9b10205a486d216d8bd955
619620 F20101201_AACVSL leko_m_Page_029.jp2
98414760df3fe0dbb851adc3cf02988a
c39835bebf3aad53f20d670b122ea5446d0da263
80473 F20101201_AACVRX leko_m_Page_071.jpg
7b2efc2320b611715ea08694d69725d6
dc8747c77911eb15e5a4fbffd4b14ae6066c8e5e
27100 F20101201_AACVTA leko_m_Page_110.QC.jpg
77a4e1b4e60cef36a7ef74f12a554701
50383529611c0370a3c1c73d333cf23125d384da
30664 F20101202_AAAACC leko_m_Page_024.QC.jpg
a4d1a309e3a1bec842f49206bff658e9
30c12a19aea275899c7ce4e8bd9d2ae3f4251713
5743 F20101202_AAAABN leko_m_Page_011thm.jpg
942cfcb02596c1113fd6987eaf721220
d008f1837dbfb79b979af4bf7577e276984469ee
F20101202_AAAAAZ leko_m_Page_203.tif
ba86f1baa759d7e8e9ed003b5b121626
ea6668c6ae2083d1115290020ad098cb6cbe6818
F20101201_AACVSM leko_m_Page_127.jp2
c4a35121b881d0f7aff6236967f4153d
deffe1a385f11a4afab406741bb9220d70cbd9cf
F20101201_AACVRY leko_m_Page_206.tif
cd807d9878d47be630db9659200863ea
edac42d9a634355969a50e0b9f8089475005fe16
F20101201_AACVTB leko_m_Page_029.tif
0bdd75b2920b02d8e6d26f27be050954
d3afe0eb41c7e5fce9d63807b6fb39fe0e7b74ad
F20101202_AAAACD leko_m_Page_024thm.jpg
4766fca29e07c30da17578839516a7d5
ef2c12024c32f360c6ba77441b402680a54fc71c
22725 F20101202_AAAABO leko_m_Page_012.QC.jpg
0b6f2077fdd7d35ce2b4fdc22134d0b2
630740e439634c80c26fed19f3efe5342d8c1f39
F20101201_AACVSN leko_m_Page_145.tif
ea4db48464cca6536fd501a9d6c267c1
2fa2d3296c6da0981ec77366fe9cee2fbf630339
F20101201_AACVRZ leko_m_Page_205.jp2
5b00e042985b14871a754ffd9ab05417
ca7c5772fd1411d445810d7997ef4c133ffd9620
F20101201_AACVTC leko_m_Page_076.jp2
889e7b3e1b57a713ca60a2aefe077844
dce31a05c9832d15a88e9d1c88ec4fb8e7b40fac
23289 F20101202_AAAACE leko_m_Page_026.QC.jpg
5b798e502635753be7e308a13e63eaf8
c7a1d188942838ecff1fc4a54eaa905488110ba2
5314 F20101202_AAAABP leko_m_Page_012thm.jpg
f484695eba8bd290947bd01c11f88a24
7edd81d07aa92c9e54b033ed37168f2c8bbb8fe5
101654 F20101201_AACVSO leko_m_Page_204.jpg
a0bfc3787e05e2b9db47740315078fdf
7e95a4fda6edab1c191b07f4b1d1eff03d4bcb67
28110 F20101201_AACVTD leko_m_Page_097.QC.jpg
7dfbf0c7a4cda7c194702e434b840582
951d422bc42d744e1c564a63f596239f7d2270a3
27649 F20101202_AAAACF leko_m_Page_027.QC.jpg
766208eddef6d1272c809bcb54bb72bc
dfa03fd33a43a904e3ac792852233f4be8632536
28663 F20101202_AAAABQ leko_m_Page_013.QC.jpg
4138fa35b60e479971aaaf4699234ea7
018c82df9998311b53b43acafd6d5e0b20df860f
92792 F20101201_AACVSP leko_m_Page_079.jpg
fd2f84576c65ef6883af592b57788cd2
03728cea2a5b79430daeb7370f5878c3cf100580
29352 F20101201_AACVTE leko_m_Page_107.QC.jpg
cb0384476f521a2a5ff9a15cc950092e
a032f6884c6a4fb88ad3a380367db253db82282c
F20101202_AAAACG leko_m_Page_027thm.jpg
ecd1008dcf882ba1d9d0896949e6d71c
eea665109e2003589acbbd3d811d2c30d06f1092
6679 F20101202_AAAABR leko_m_Page_013thm.jpg
34fa8998a0a114f2e633a910c6f300db
9b740ecb35b565358701e561f28f528e922184ac
6664 F20101201_AACVSQ leko_m_Page_030thm.jpg
99cf59708c4e944d2629ada8b2f4002a
2eb9ae2bdc54cc35384477fb9aac6ef947513956
88459 F20101201_AACVTF leko_m_Page_046.jpg
946a5e5d231f0e1ab63de767b07f329f
52fa2cc3d24fb2ab3c13798c25703f9a0f1e6c2c
21729 F20101202_AAAACH leko_m_Page_028.QC.jpg
027c2c01f317cb6a596dfb0fc7d4c9f9
b05d80b725d6ebd3ef625cb78918bb10edfe08b4
26405 F20101202_AAAABS leko_m_Page_015.QC.jpg
2ac30e2966574499fbaa5ed1e2542bcc
34da4a90fdd81aef78619ce944f25219d1eaeb8c
24904 F20101201_AACVSR leko_m_Page_207.QC.jpg
6b5b90dd318ae4a38ddbac8f8025d7b6
32bc525616362c8e4a80dc8ffe74ee83c42e316d
4861 F20101202_AAAACI leko_m_Page_028thm.jpg
f0cbed925117096a1ef2fa5cbe7f51cb
b5b67967802ffb1abbe4a8ff6b337c8fb9530ab4
6578 F20101202_AAAABT leko_m_Page_016thm.jpg
e486721f97888dfcd1e913be7b078de1
edb997f77317b8e1874a2bf6319211fe00a83f2a
28373 F20101201_AACVSS leko_m_Page_141.QC.jpg
c6d90bf8ab7396cae5c64151c820aa6e
2e9d83fe02e168e259d5b77e47c4cee20f2696a7
89973 F20101201_AACVTG leko_m_Page_171.jpg
d0ddc2fb07e2d903cf7a5d579e99e05f
9bc21ffa40c1cce1ad793f4e57af1092b2d9286c
27379 F20101202_AAAABU leko_m_Page_017.QC.jpg
85b2cc19c357a7c31cc8b78501861a84
628f04dddfb7f0500fa494ae304d3033e8e5e37c
6663 F20101201_AACVST leko_m_Page_162thm.jpg
1f7fccf195d10d74384efca1c7c9f661
d721b663faec0c28fa95f133b8307d4312f166a9
6813 F20101201_AACVTH leko_m_Page_126thm.jpg
485c4071cfbe045306cd6aff2a239a2a
5d1bc588ade74e32900191003a9020db26d10831
16120 F20101202_AAAACJ leko_m_Page_029.QC.jpg
a48216042449ff5a94f522ca63a5c7a9
9544517d0a8aa010eaa6ef53b7f7d31f80fe24e2
6585 F20101202_AAAABV leko_m_Page_017thm.jpg
042a9068f49f535fb75b8cb8f02eed88
a7d85526c1bc801c50c8aace6ab4c937eab48365
26882 F20101201_AACVSU leko_m_Page_149.QC.jpg
4b583a0c98e0055d8d5b5bd16a8c2a9b
e53f4f01595736e1b0a4f07d2f05192982d42228
F20101201_AACVTI leko_m_Page_079.tif
ab406ece6f3369658f456f7c86a50db6
4c58ec10f16090827047ab69e6c3ede3ba23561c
26298 F20101202_AAAACK leko_m_Page_031.QC.jpg
8ee4fd00adca0fb3af123d1a143ff7df
826eb7cae572b4d4c5470842ae311961679d2d05
6858 F20101202_AAAABW leko_m_Page_018thm.jpg
39689ab89ab290b05829041d8b95ce8a
814ad9237735fc693479869b535cd6c9be351306
F20101201_AACVSV leko_m_Page_086.tif
fe0a3eb27e19099b481c5337362fa9d7
c40d91aa66e8a937d25848b3687bad7f1f20e8e9
6303 F20101201_AACVTJ leko_m_Page_131thm.jpg
2a6a0e4d53016ebf838bf9ddf4b57780
55be21f71ef82e6e6a1728282c19cdb21fddf1ca
F20101202_AAAADA leko_m_Page_042.QC.jpg
4491aac11cac36f55f228c1bbbc0081d
f40c2a1ee7f9b0aa7b2da2c34f75d18460e1dde9
6101 F20101202_AAAACL leko_m_Page_031thm.jpg
8b179351f22ee34feb9463dd48bef101
592e7998e884cd3e7f948ee6aa02deaa545abb2c
6272 F20101202_AAAABX leko_m_Page_019thm.jpg
c2367f3f21a941b4bca0f414a5979b38
f28a5bf6b211dd9d903dd7328f1ac5194e3eb168
6715 F20101201_AACVSW leko_m_Page_038thm.jpg
8246b49c1cb73c2e03e7418208fec705
5b723da853682996d64190bee60f67e77d973cf2
24764 F20101201_AACVTK leko_m_Page_069.QC.jpg
17c0051567cd43d66305bba69e576e38
11f21bd1d1e0f4dee162a880ac4b1de925a0ac0c
28721 F20101202_AAAADB leko_m_Page_043.QC.jpg
e44943021f1d03af5cdf8b96411f1562
1db6423f2c0c4b647a16fcda40175d5f57f3a92a
27551 F20101202_AAAACM leko_m_Page_032.QC.jpg
6ed47e74f53cddc8700508fc94b89df4
b10b3cdb727f33a2b467e53d5f2c3c0477fb2ccf
6814 F20101202_AAAABY leko_m_Page_020thm.jpg
bf7c34cd7b81f812b052d67944f98aed
6ac63a6e5779beaa8aa04ba7aeca68f017c364f8
1051943 F20101201_AACVSX leko_m_Page_055.jp2
c350b84714aca41d0924e6e0d577e30a
541fc6ba2ee2b8b44daff92f333b9f7bd34fbb4a
F20101201_AACVUA leko_m_Page_180.tif
ecaef88125e83abad84d13fbfeca1fb5
f72c9179de78dc86fc03470a85b23af2d715f55d
90988 F20101201_AACVTL leko_m_Page_006.jpg
26d3a7013000004c80ba0b9375cf170f
0cc7ac94d1474165bf171e3c82de5df6d479de09
28731 F20101202_AAAADC leko_m_Page_044.QC.jpg
2263650e5c97bad561ddc92c3a62df9c
ff3f98efc296d2cc3c3f9cd96ea4aa6b3d23d43e
6420 F20101202_AAAACN leko_m_Page_032thm.jpg
9d4246924eeac554070ff06086fbe569
6e1916ca938fc36dff66357bcf271e34f8fbbb75
1540 F20101202_AAAABZ leko_m_Page_021thm.jpg
e3a0040f0a3f5d1af41572aae9c73469
e22a5e30c67f8ad4467358e8f298531db89cf0b7
1051955 F20101201_AACVSY leko_m_Page_175.jp2
d37eedcf122ee2b5ffef05361cb1072d
2c5a0f8434c50f94d5afef7a8d2ee263c74aed15
1779 F20101201_AACVUB leko_m_Page_001thm.jpg
36f18d64106fc624bad62d4fc3d3924b
50724f6f65a608180dfbbe5c50bfc26d864add0f
5673 F20101201_AACVTM leko_m_Page_021.QC.jpg
9d30e4d0e41979c20603d1cd181d67e8
6f926aeff0eb25023c84960082c06e1d0313571b
6534 F20101202_AAAADD leko_m_Page_045thm.jpg
56bb1f4ea1d6c3cecda0ca5032790cde
9e5f4c7e5b2ed6938788aa5571ec1a7c4782ca9b
6474 F20101202_AAAACO leko_m_Page_033thm.jpg
8f8dda6c642e99bbef81f0a1c4c2c7bc
c4dbd77942de7ddb5f2822695345fc9ed71d97bc
F20101201_AACVSZ leko_m_Page_198.jp2
4ef1b8a35ccc1e5e5a5ce80827e7681e
3b88b2000a627932e7b7ec038b2c7c4da02f3927
27863 F20101201_AACVUC leko_m_Page_145.QC.jpg
265b5f9a054851aab97bb1bd86c7c28a
72f9fbb3f31a6973fe370911eb758091f8b38070
1051900 F20101201_AACVTN leko_m_Page_124.jp2
3ce427e4ce19d4214a5612151db4aa01
4e74ea68602b00d6f12fc840d954da37164d50db
28063 F20101202_AAAADE leko_m_Page_046.QC.jpg
91d638f73fd2f262d58bac3d27d4ed5e
e25914b3cdfc40f4e89fbcaddccbba0373178da6
28888 F20101202_AAAACP leko_m_Page_034.QC.jpg
2b8ff3f1ba7f8c93e1b0c33978c7b06f
8a6cfb339132d09263b5b1a3fd44b3f37041a829
1009883 F20101201_AACVUD leko_m_Page_188.jp2
3f6e6500ccd1ce121a6f250d50f8160d
9c830674de78d85916c735b5a871f44e73a27ee4
28563 F20101201_AACVTO leko_m_Page_106.QC.jpg
3bb3aba34ecb6047eea2e2cf5ab18ad7
811feaa6f7bc12205f7c2eadfa756e1df7e760d1
6711 F20101202_AAAADF leko_m_Page_046thm.jpg
7c91d3683dea03ed893f5667d76589c0
78eaf9bca8de46a2ff788aa648c09e2ae43518de
6815 F20101202_AAAACQ leko_m_Page_034thm.jpg
f7e6a1e79f760b526131555b395842cf
ed3e850b79397961b8f7aeb999a95cc19391f876
6249 F20101201_AACVUE leko_m_Page_071thm.jpg
3b0ece3d3bddaf5914e226180d392e83
52f469ebee407aa774db8de130ee47a4d7c28fde
1051945 F20101201_AACVTP leko_m_Page_104.jp2
bb28ddfca93f2144c6009651a44fe43f
1d3309311e647afab14d0eac1f55e1aee92d231e
27230 F20101202_AAAADG leko_m_Page_048.QC.jpg
8128e52ef003aac719374730c5f5cbdc
5bc091054b3c3e85cdd28f9d12ca91b0edc4262d
28555 F20101202_AAAACR leko_m_Page_035.QC.jpg
c7bb1f3a83e2f6fb7fdad03413f97c7b
883687d47d22de105e7d880cc213d13ebeb836eb
F20101201_AACVUF leko_m_Page_165thm.jpg
b4f145df220b01bd832d989a505ed9a8
9019ac42e149eae9ec79f9380344b24ecfb153c7
307745 F20101201_AACVTQ leko_m_Page_001.jp2
e639c12cf208e18efca99a92438adaf4
eaa17133f8328733ab4fb4afd6e6aa30ffb6b507
27846 F20101202_AAAADH leko_m_Page_049.QC.jpg
2e640b5c3500037a925aafc3535cdd1f
3e47ab4a84f6a89360e75cef70730cf157696667
27047 F20101202_AAAACS leko_m_Page_036.QC.jpg
b227093f627ae88b4d4e3a0888fa1d39
445a828ad9c3cb5da04cacafe4f5cd366f2a016a
6581 F20101201_AACVUG leko_m_Page_103thm.jpg
44ce621195c06d786ecbc9de57292f82
4d69663418248dd6be27967dad76597ba85ab35d
F20101201_AACVTR leko_m_Page_156.jp2
6917729b6c34c57258d3f90afe169946
7e8383f92776bd689ae6a6c432b1d2d97b4e4d12
95497 F20101201_AACWAA leko_m_Page_024.jpg
1ff715874ce857afe2271b9c34abd7cb
1f21b249a7c11b129156878e0df539ca6d220da7
6494 F20101202_AAAADI leko_m_Page_049thm.jpg
dab9614e0b8bc265d3542137f65920f2
a67947b2defbe8be70e2c96a7d59fdb083215c3d
27033 F20101202_AAAACT leko_m_Page_037.QC.jpg
889448765a7ecf5dba936524af08b51d
45eef3791b854816909c102197c0d083463dd85e
28656 F20101201_AACVTS leko_m_Page_139.QC.jpg
8dcb6adc2e961e49fd1aac712a9bdf11
49bba35afc3018d6974eb2fb7b00cc002bf0823d
88095 F20101201_AACWAB leko_m_Page_027.jpg
02ded16ea4ef7526aaaebdf3c1f5e21e
2324c4abf8816309ca4c58073e1d25ef6f70874f
28728 F20101202_AAAADJ leko_m_Page_050.QC.jpg
b7d2f7119cc45e5ab3901ac9b97249f0
306a2a137887f1d329271226cfb1410a4123f91f
27837 F20101202_AAAACU leko_m_Page_039.QC.jpg
f715c4608986e2c48e355d98321003a2
b7ac0a071018a6762e1108e76bc23c7fb3f275cb
6503 F20101201_AACVUH leko_m_Page_171thm.jpg
831cbc994b4c35ce75719aaa7f0f5b46
056fd685011d835ed08d15de87b8cd726cb3668e
88408 F20101201_AACVTT leko_m_Page_016.jpg
3f040a3f23bcd4ccad942c3e40aec953
690ca42994b1a53f553e166db703ebca16de2eb3
89057 F20101201_AACWAC leko_m_Page_032.jpg
f4035917710f8c0e5e2028d1c1da9951
063a63f0b6fb5ca35bb3c518e1e8987f4086f288
6612 F20101202_AAAACV leko_m_Page_039thm.jpg
f5778aeb54391af87a1601cdc81fc31f
f001f0298ba3f195bc3ecd601f6f01a14fa404c5
28872 F20101201_AACVUI leko_m_Page_172.QC.jpg
de405d96913cf798bf5c2f50b83279ef
7c75a9a2c9fb9d87dfcb440f1410f15b3c3668c3
F20101201_AACVTU leko_m_Page_147.tif
c8b092b0396040e2e82892e6708ddc3e
d8544c7035942bf6c762cd43e9ec591ef63885ae
90000 F20101201_AACWAD leko_m_Page_035.jpg
34c75a147a536c6a011c9073fd06eacf
b6bd47dfacbdcec8209d98a37121c709a541d3f8
6745 F20101202_AAAADK leko_m_Page_050thm.jpg
31b47ee29caecea5cc1aebd45d6f8fe1
c929d2a0ecb0ff5660051f262dd2c54e276992d4
29557 F20101202_AAAACW leko_m_Page_040.QC.jpg
c95da3e7090e6e77f6e5537b5cbdc819
b859512e3110d4b6529c7819747b3d978722ca2d
F20101201_AACVUJ leko_m_Page_025.tif
9d1a16610632e224428e75e1c920c270
4f7710b046c58a80188e6eaae46d9925ed276df2
F20101201_AACVTV leko_m_Page_201.QC.jpg
2908a6db9e4412ab4a7ef960ed3c80b4
ec7948d606ab586f0de386afddfb608c7d602129
88860 F20101201_AACWAE leko_m_Page_039.jpg
cd484664cacd702e92750758f3ce6483
375cd5152efa4766120ed52a580f4d8b6c27be2d
28183 F20101202_AAAAEA leko_m_Page_065.QC.jpg
4f4ac3204dde14708f368e10e2b551e7
a55ba8b82ff5c7cdc75e8294916c2d146e636ae2
26505 F20101202_AAAADL leko_m_Page_051.QC.jpg
e723d8d4774117186097b5de00acd094
c232e47261a19b9ee335add3af3f9b89e29cb6bc
6749 F20101202_AAAACX leko_m_Page_040thm.jpg
9f7060586c522f1fcc6d1067091cd364
fa46f6b159656012d29c1141e8d58710d13624a3
F20101201_AACVUK leko_m_Page_102.tif
488c3f0041e3b065ea1befd82b128bd7
01a1206342a2d1c37ef35e65a176e7f59f497545
10670 F20101201_AACVTW leko_m_Page_053.QC.jpg
8dbaf70b2d5e3a60ab2c30f7439ea5d1
869798b809dc53696287e76eabe8b919f16d235f
86298 F20101201_AACWAF leko_m_Page_041.jpg
2c4392d22c6477e1cfe8eaddf949298c
b692a46a95e4449f7e1ecf6e05df88e81922b673
6639 F20101202_AAAAEB leko_m_Page_065thm.jpg
dba47b2be97e515d0f43ea1bf0aeb188
7bfc8203c911d205c49e63e814791b5f90e864f7
27055 F20101202_AAAADM leko_m_Page_052.QC.jpg
09918af630fe31f2d958788b596ad2f9
3ee6a66f53fa9f9824c36fe99900a00b683cfdb9
26687 F20101202_AAAACY leko_m_Page_041.QC.jpg
1e68d70bca3ea9ece7aa19a5a682cda3
96eb0405fa3d49e842f5b0588a574c24d54294df
F20101201_AACVVA leko_m_Page_035.tif
fcea23d8c490667d894b86bbeb948221
94adee82a25a5aef26007447a69104c3107c660e
89777 F20101201_AACVUL leko_m_Page_030.jpg
622ce697e32b332b1f5a1d9357bab0b7
8ccd5d1afbc8aba4c27055a4d9835b5f6d080448
6560 F20101201_AACVTX leko_m_Page_067thm.jpg
10ea26aadea2035d3dd990c9cbb3e13b
3f7f85386c76aeec19804c4fb08bfaacead8b8a1
90447 F20101201_AACWAG leko_m_Page_042.jpg
d99064a67bc5421d4060ccdeb4114272
3a10e003bcd74e67c8b8c853d1061efaf5f1fae0
27453 F20101202_AAAAEC leko_m_Page_066.QC.jpg
501cd561e5e57a6a6d4eff5ae8260896
9f1ce9c63c59eea98cf6824e6d8393a436fcf815
6329 F20101202_AAAADN leko_m_Page_052thm.jpg
f4d0a5a101f4ebf99cae8ada780d69e9
c17deab403b80fb6292642e45580d80382e7ac3b
6608 F20101202_AAAACZ leko_m_Page_041thm.jpg
daab9be71aa043982513488f3f1961a0
57f29514a34accb0c747e2277d929bcdaf4fc589
1051924 F20101201_AACVVB leko_m_Page_118.jp2
dd9de857e6c6b45a1ac64ca180c1ce6f
a105299b4ab8cc6b8a6f297b5fb226ec7fbc8d2a
87411 F20101201_AACVUM leko_m_Page_037.jpg
85de54514e29cc343861e898b1896612
82278510a10dc264c878c841143f940b2a12fd52
407482 F20101201_AACVTY leko_m_Page_197.jp2
28a111110c3decfb0ba66c5b3ed9ae66
24f0a25a7c40a32a6422c860dabf65ea6f6a12f2
91745 F20101201_AACWAH leko_m_Page_043.jpg
aaf7f69330fad573d227eaca682ecffa
b109b244a97ba53072f10884e300d789af1df531
25786 F20101202_AAAAED leko_m_Page_067.QC.jpg
00450f09380503e2cafe9c6da53357d3
559f7255630116de1ad310eb3ed783fd3205635c
2485 F20101202_AAAADO leko_m_Page_053thm.jpg
0038cd112d2dbfd32d80f26a0e9d06ba
7c2587dac59170a9c7886d0ec43076a753666352
6473 F20101201_AACVVC leko_m_Page_077thm.jpg
281af4d42c737c82714cd377b44887e2
54a7513e9af323c97832b1c03e9fe47a52cbe000
6614 F20101201_AACVUN leko_m_Page_099thm.jpg
6bb3809f0fd78208f5fe20881e85e972
05754d368cf5fc7113ac98ec11776a099531c34c
29031 F20101201_AACVTZ leko_m_Page_018.QC.jpg
a547a31e010c801d730293ea34bee236
f1b380bec3ce21233666bb1d03833ea7c445d7e4
92259 F20101201_AACWAI leko_m_Page_044.jpg
91f1abf8404498ef6abda015c000341e
9d774557e2577f470d36a1b03fbe0c5fe9d3eaaa
27122 F20101202_AAAAEE leko_m_Page_070.QC.jpg
b97747080622b54a07028fcfb26c188c
2d7f60104880857c74442b2d7f67e60a687b193b
25163 F20101202_AAAADP leko_m_Page_055.QC.jpg
a30d8f14c9e0a4109942abc771c44d77
2b47679709003fae0e07e59635cbe39dff89f3c6
F20101201_AACVVD leko_m_Page_057.jp2
c171ba53efd0b5b1a183a0ae0718c85e
a3791e529324bfe43681e52a28b791e4dab5a4e9
F20101201_AACVUO leko_m_Page_152.jp2
1f682db6598d7a9f00eb2405af7bdf59
d5a48032943b129d6d564907252793070402e8a0
85951 F20101201_AACWAJ leko_m_Page_048.jpg
f36d61e26e11740908c011dfafc920d4
119574451b654b1457ec0d841b981b34554e2808
6395 F20101202_AAAAEF leko_m_Page_070thm.jpg
20a34eb71de15ada35a6e55215fda617
39ca303bf29577cc909c1de0d3b9da03794d61bb
26774 F20101202_AAAADQ leko_m_Page_056.QC.jpg
006b0ad718ec4bc9f55f5c1aeb0c2c17
39747fa9f1c35933373a50fd68913e2fd1ddb959
6164 F20101201_AACVVE leko_m_Page_054thm.jpg
bfbf5c32e01bba4edc4cd0c76ecd1705
b6e9bdadf228d06485394a615afc1cdcdf5c92f1
4855 F20101201_AACVUP leko_m_Page_206thm.jpg
01c6ad5092bafe00199387cecc7e7005
dfdbab20f1f3199fe70b6abcd13578bf1b91e92e
92582 F20101201_AACWAK leko_m_Page_050.jpg
e3df57620d07d1ae487ca6d495297a75
0fd2b0d9474b2b5ce9ec17d26d3506f14714a4bf
26171 F20101202_AAAAEG leko_m_Page_071.QC.jpg
5b18ccb7d9b02bec4813e9f88ccebaf7
eb2ce098ca8d318fcbf45b0437221d0d28fe3dbf
6166 F20101202_AAAADR leko_m_Page_056thm.jpg
c20e1e2d6c74f088594fa743393be54a
ac07a4dfab9112e9cfe7fe1f6ea06aca06ced9b0
6549 F20101201_AACVVF leko_m_Page_037thm.jpg
4b407d39720cdf820361c7865b2b3586
1505be2aef370c13cedacb1fc910337b9e796d16
599916 F20101201_AACVUQ leko_m.pdf
4d1824ca089fdc365212585ee988195c
d05a2f0182a2482b8b7fcfd7332daa0fbb6f0db4
81766 F20101201_AACWAL leko_m_Page_054.jpg
dd46b4831fb08b064be7e92999c61ad0
cc6416d05fccf1f0e0ace2a0cb9f171f9e051461
27976 F20101202_AAAAEH leko_m_Page_073.QC.jpg
782119f991b6b28e29182843c3e301eb
102649d42d6081e2b59b5279c9c8b79992f065f2
F20101202_AAAADS leko_m_Page_059thm.jpg
6f12bfdc592eae292942d3c7bc77e2f9
caac64cffbdd06501e444a66b8b1adf1b75236fc
29841 F20101201_AACVVG leko_m_Page_108.QC.jpg
ee4a363103b992e82848b47940b10d8e
ed580d67748255df2346bdd43d38d0b6ec61aa33
3010 F20101201_AACVUR leko_m_Page_133thm.jpg
2a0ab73b5c5c93501aad9625b3466088
688ae55f486156357399e9db608d7045a9be975c
90820 F20101201_AACWBA leko_m_Page_082.jpg
aca15775df75a1cd8d50a65b3bb87b16
1af48ec331396a972840f598f7e91346ec5398cf
88845 F20101201_AACWAM leko_m_Page_057.jpg
f1c24f7ec79be055ef681d88d72a4a2f
105b705db29408f7c3229294753a9f216fa2c596
27360 F20101202_AAAAEI leko_m_Page_074.QC.jpg
b3b89729bd06ec2a65b85ba1f48bce09
0553e44fd77f86ec0ec34ae56574118b0b5ddd21
26709 F20101202_AAAADT leko_m_Page_060.QC.jpg
0c589a923a358cfa86b16eee6f0988bd
0e1559ed93467eb3a619fe70b352997cd93b85d7
F20101201_AACVVH leko_m_Page_096.jp2
8fc9cfada6461d5d9e858a8ef00928fe
a94741da1485951310124becaf49e560f0a72e25
6772 F20101201_AACVUS leko_m_Page_078thm.jpg
96b0581ff0151f1f1a3172f924af2a2b
b82fe13606d0a0729b4ae56fe9fa518e5adaadc9
68270 F20101201_AACWBB leko_m_Page_083.jpg
a70c5b48661a40db81b41c15f304cee9
d5e590823fdc727bb39e5735eac4c5a37f4b986c
85322 F20101201_AACWAN leko_m_Page_059.jpg
e066e0a2e5526b29249fe3e0866682e9
ca75ecbc0f098cab6bb06b388114c30d3794d021
6399 F20101202_AAAAEJ leko_m_Page_074thm.jpg
0b65d563f009e53a05fb517cadf58470
ce37966bd3d5777d773c230980d05c4fba2adbba
23858 F20101202_AAAADU leko_m_Page_061.QC.jpg
0e640fbd79dce6ec0fe02809bf6e928f
c142b15b34f3cb85b0aeed9c7a018eed1ca549d8
28167 F20101201_AACVUT leko_m_Page_081.QC.jpg
e380f37c68606e39e030603038a1368c
0fe2df485a102be9da2cc112a5926f507a8a57c8
48721 F20101201_AACWBC leko_m_Page_084.jpg
a77198b3506b9f30bb102f901c6ed931
0ac4f16a07d239e7ef1f499b273206212b21e21b
84932 F20101201_AACWAO leko_m_Page_060.jpg
acdb5397ed6fad99b22e8e933f6bd153
8dde2a279c8fda2c0f16b2f3abf69895c9ad504f
26026 F20101202_AAAAEK leko_m_Page_075.QC.jpg
e221d6971c4804d406c9dffcfba0660b
fd9e3228028745a1ecb5d47c36f2f42be3da0a79
5857 F20101202_AAAADV leko_m_Page_061thm.jpg
5f02ff833a8b2807c993fe93a9251f6b
4b39f9b8c782cb8885ae6562b4ff75013d2588a9
F20101201_AACVVI leko_m_Page_004.jp2
00222e0439f4dd535905c7a5712faa76
2d04c210f2291b83583ee77e158c5d5bb0900d3d
F20101201_AACVUU leko_m_Page_035.jp2
c5642ac043af0f555f585d7534585592
e81c0c955c4893ac85852954766467f2bcde1fbd
51660 F20101201_AACWBD leko_m_Page_086.jpg
135df5c7210ab94b9a16bce52a9f7bfe
11f9d90f143cc206899ace4396e9d3de5a6c2242
75428 F20101201_AACWAP leko_m_Page_061.jpg
2cf6f8de1ed6aa6af40b63cb7bd9c0d1
b779580e0315b13864d520a45df348c58454b694
6147 F20101202_AAAADW leko_m_Page_062thm.jpg
926330a155127171c3655ae68666baa8
ea470201425d160f95bb2ac9e9ae9616100e2b2b
85336 F20101201_AACVVJ leko_m_Page_052.jpg
8e3001ee6e4f69bbe4c0b913cab29713
f92759e927f26b4062e709c6eec4477081bc3516
1051967 F20101201_AACVUV leko_m_Page_091.jp2
5963697e366ec5559ff2818bcf17286f
efa06675577cc7ca96fd7a46e8b6731734e185e2
79536 F20101201_AACWBE leko_m_Page_088.jpg
1f32ccdd201479ce5eaea64d48cdb24e
dcc06090ac5caac009124133659a108d29617145
87199 F20101201_AACWAQ leko_m_Page_063.jpg
0876a5fb5522a9eac49c70dc98475d45
1e1e087728d4fe929a7b6e7fc6444bfb4d2eea93
6757 F20101202_AAAAFA leko_m_Page_089thm.jpg
d5e0110897fb4c85287f7a48625a013c
92f633712b7276eb9091741d882fbbf21ea45e8a
5989 F20101202_AAAAEL leko_m_Page_075thm.jpg
ca9ef03fb2d494b023cb3654ddc78fd5
a7f32eda60c27b6df80162bc5d7e4c34986134d1
27476 F20101202_AAAADX leko_m_Page_063.QC.jpg
af0dd1c07326fa0708b8367a507f203e
2312f1ed4d8b1e0f32eed6331c61804a25b62ef1
1051941 F20101201_AACVVK leko_m_Page_033.jp2
3aa8e7c7f3ee95b8539f62ab485c718a
b2a421ec5f0b5cc3ee424cc116159bfde2791875
F20101201_AACVUW leko_m_Page_079.jp2
3764d7e60e1d429ac50bd6e1bf3c4878
4738a282b670703cf26227db4edc171a92d9f99b
88791 F20101201_AACWBF leko_m_Page_093.jpg
a6d777c00a9126631f6e1ebc18bc02c4
64599d7a8d11642d81cdf090fddf050abd382342
85524 F20101201_AACWAR leko_m_Page_064.jpg
eea6d089639c2238aaba9bd688297a4c
043e64fbd2133ce09318530c071c4998a410a4e2
6161 F20101202_AAAAFB leko_m_Page_090thm.jpg
344a68ea426a871af3322ed441e0d724
ae34dc93727516b667f03433f151c19c33d35245
27030 F20101202_AAAAEM leko_m_Page_076.QC.jpg
7310cd8600cbf8bba39c42eada40f6a3
e2fe8eeaa53db5d651bfdf0958912ead8a67bb72
26338 F20101202_AAAADY leko_m_Page_064.QC.jpg
ef92986d33ebaf05ead29879ece6d408
5d50772a87ad763b57849839fa921b1d04949865
84891 F20101201_AACVVL leko_m_Page_056.jpg
017685dac7ed90906c3ab16e48f90063
17eaa34cb4e20c88ee35e94273e2c790765bc2cf
621487 F20101201_AACVUX leko_m_Page_084.jp2
168082f85ef4cbda44608af8f4b1a388
18b197c229935cc68a404d1ff9b3d81aea0cd7a9
91416 F20101201_AACWBG leko_m_Page_098.jpg
829be3ddca8a0bd7c99101864bca4bae
98e668d586623112ed8ab3f75813c3ac315b212d
6806 F20101201_AACVWA leko_m_Page_142thm.jpg
8f73899e97dc4c6c3683a7c2f4ba216f
c00638c7882c5dd950e81642f3509f19de699222
6756 F20101202_AAAAFC leko_m_Page_091thm.jpg
5718c08737cce85258f347c5aaa30114
3801e45bb50c8a576cf9a39a01adc86f1dac1b73
6668 F20101202_AAAAEN leko_m_Page_076thm.jpg
15e69cdc66db6072bfbb88bd9fbad02d
2ea1706cb5748a1fe28079a4cc8a12ba87f188b5
6475 F20101202_AAAADZ leko_m_Page_064thm.jpg
116a18171b8b9d795a4ad7f8930b3810
6cf1c34a089749cdfdab970e7622121fdff209da
1051888 F20101201_AACVVM leko_m_Page_064.jp2
8f62783a5e051f80dd3eb53ae10a0a4e
403cc11527d5d3b257e9edfb24077ab5cb091807
F20101201_AACVUY leko_m_Page_038.tif
2533d34ba8701717078d7b9e22d35b1c
4b3aeb42b48858591e5b57b5c9826cd70c31207b
95587 F20101201_AACWBH leko_m_Page_100.jpg
307fca7f6b3a3840c8fd6204f7878936
1175ba7cf3c6dabc7b6a9d983ce73d3ebd1c2763
6680 F20101201_AACVWB leko_m_Page_097thm.jpg
912b0b55bcb475a446f1c942966033ad
d3b1ab74ebbcfe8214d78e5f179565439fa2cf62
95035 F20101201_AACWAS leko_m_Page_066.jpg
3c34fc8f075de787e5f1e73fcf1a3e86
926a46821ac4d75417ffed5f3af9e52cc7736609
6533 F20101202_AAAAFD leko_m_Page_092thm.jpg
691253955167534725a8b88d3990cbf9
84e0f8b69d9517b529dd7949f35d6c9dea1b2ecb
28951 F20101202_AAAAEO leko_m_Page_080.QC.jpg
c44fd5bec679dc5f79673ecb1f087ff3
de93b68839d02a351a7a67894251470263cb707d
F20101201_AACVVN leko_m_Page_191.tif
b17c4ef39bc39fbbce39fcd924291a0a
2eace9d35db0adf4005ee6e344f43f4cbfeda785
106448 F20101201_AACVUZ leko_m_Page_099.jpg
d6e86189d8236eba492edc7e345b8433
4e927ccb440e3142ce214d020cba8d4edc144565
87702 F20101201_AACWBI leko_m_Page_101.jpg
4849f9c85db20866e104bf95921eee0f
f078e769cef58fc6c8f140e4c6fb37f2cc1bb32e
F20101201_AACVWC leko_m_Page_110.tif
f9c8e19b865599178f961105efad7f16
a5935630da55af4b2312e7c36151396649d85790
89297 F20101201_AACWAT leko_m_Page_072.jpg
b76d52d29d904f853ff3c718ece9f2b8
2f40c9c8199afabed29da230102586a20756e36c
27431 F20101202_AAAAFE leko_m_Page_093.QC.jpg
2b1276439211a6e4bbf468b062b2a056
40a2c168bacd438771d0ca82aab978d3dd157b4f
6675 F20101202_AAAAEP leko_m_Page_080thm.jpg
2518d29ae02862b3c400e4f2fb14a71a
b111b66ff339b31bf33f3acd70080fd1a3feaacf
F20101201_AACVVO leko_m_Page_099.jp2
f7f767c0144ea3db9063fcf7f2661dde
10dcb0a5781473b8c188b57ab48e4314e9082d3f
89325 F20101201_AACWBJ leko_m_Page_102.jpg
181e8c671cb0b0d269e771cc4e115eab
60abac83e6e69f8fd78fc680ebc612e7e49ad3c8
479932 F20101201_AACVWD leko_m_Page_022.jp2
dc6749029aaf0f1b55994df398d97110
d9e31f08445499a01dad3d660635b5cec90ff902
90226 F20101201_AACWAU leko_m_Page_073.jpg
b7a5a261faaf0caf56bdda77e3cf062d
b2992256e97b26ea4b10af8583cdf605f191c94d
F20101202_AAAAFF leko_m_Page_094thm.jpg
44f8b2f6c1f06860800c4af048c5e01f
fbf43b23568e68b6d7e6e5e4244bb1d8fab923ef
28351 F20101202_AAAAEQ leko_m_Page_082.QC.jpg
cb9bea34dd3c2a32d2249bb91406c2ba
66827ab21a26e46b159ecd50d8ed59d49f7e6aa9
30054 F20101201_AACVVP leko_m_Page_014.QC.jpg
c7eabb37e7b5a94e772d950b3f270957
11049335dab3f2f321dd06c7b62d1f16d5ad4803
88192 F20101201_AACWBK leko_m_Page_103.jpg
6335285d0d3ef1ae533c000d79fc9d03
d0ccec3c0d0e6a9293923521498f9758fd45f36e
F20101201_AACVWE leko_m_Page_148.tif
833212cdc9e5268224f4b38c80a36f48
2db501ed52118eb6c0967e2efbd756d6ed6fd98f
86780 F20101201_AACWAV leko_m_Page_074.jpg
df575bd5e426e508fd9d3ac6ed14aa75
2a8982f69c320fa2ac876f3798279d6023070fdd
24201 F20101202_AAAAFG leko_m_Page_096.QC.jpg
65bbeeb0db2cfc9aaf36905bad38dd85
cea1424217fa8e7ca41cf2cfc52fbbd54b35cd04
4937 F20101202_AAAAER leko_m_Page_083thm.jpg
4d3323133beaea88cb0bc22dd6c543bf
0ce926be72e9df59630abdd2458605fc50b52c9a
1051939 F20101201_AACVVQ leko_m_Page_116.jp2
f0066de79db99d9b6dc4bc6a3664e7e6
0468b2482058ba203fddc54d098a1d6d1515d262
89186 F20101201_AACWBL leko_m_Page_104.jpg
6ec5dd63571e4a58eef7a4a5475e43e0
8f255bddefd83d67abb151b6fab24929c0e3435b
1021350 F20101201_AACVWF leko_m_Page_061.jp2
c42c468e810a502a317ffd8e2cf08292
caafb5273c2fc03a7bcdd0e243d238c321175863
87031 F20101201_AACWAW leko_m_Page_076.jpg
05bff7d4c4a793b140208451fd3748f5
01c496ed61a571b1e943e789f877e91dff25cd41
6015 F20101202_AAAAFH leko_m_Page_096thm.jpg
31bebcb1c6b6b4b274b34161a5ea2985
0519fa1912f74bb659973020ea6aa69b10b54d57
15436 F20101202_AAAAES leko_m_Page_084.QC.jpg
4adb6650c0406cec342acaa17a528fb7
6f2906bb6e2521c4f99c1037d6da6de1fc1bd65a
1051976 F20101201_AACVVR leko_m_Page_103.jp2
50192872a07b9b2fd393d5566e5cfe7c
d34717fa31ecbd982f3b43c826f1d3a5e3fed79d
79651 F20101201_AACWCA leko_m_Page_125.jpg
52c48dc87009e0cff3e383a3c80ccb50
cfc07bb351cf4c085bff9ebc4733788b692741cd
90433 F20101201_AACWBM leko_m_Page_106.jpg
66b3622187106ee9028b95bf02989bd8
e34cfbb99426fa97c30431eef47171760f145c70
1051929 F20101201_AACVWG leko_m_Page_094.jp2
c262aa7d1ca56f418975b927a8e34d6d
0fd0ced34f0eac6ff6213c52ba31d7ba7e999623
90257 F20101201_AACWAX leko_m_Page_077.jpg
e4f97ce302dc5a2189acdc45454ecb64
a863d890a66d6c0740cfcb66d9694b3378cf11d3
28342 F20101202_AAAAFI leko_m_Page_098.QC.jpg
2a418b9f5557ccd2d5c10586e116b391
46e902c413274973fc062ae7307e2e58d440466b
4850 F20101202_AAAAET leko_m_Page_084thm.jpg
1b5586c1b784707d2c78ba09e28b7f69
528e0526951947753da890dcddc917d06a04b173
58664 F20101201_AACVVS leko_m_Page_184.jpg
a5a943bd94dcc08f1e687a9cf7323648
bcb332e0b12adcdb8fddd7621019e61ecc5b3b5a
91743 F20101201_AACWCB leko_m_Page_126.jpg
f052523c0d4182b8208d59dc981750d1
e758bd4ab5c1027068d9db01f781eb3e7b7a0e51
95805 F20101201_AACWBN leko_m_Page_108.jpg
112d8f5419f84b313b70c12f4cc452ca
cbd38231fb110525e42dee06a70d343b91cc6171
F20101201_AACVWH leko_m_Page_143.tif
72a9651f93023c6a125fd4eafdce9d8f
a9335e9d7a912880de736de47420dee34d79f021
88366 F20101201_AACWAY leko_m_Page_078.jpg
99689dea608dfa434ad04363b11179e8
0aeb1859465faece809e4656232746701211d336
6710 F20101202_AAAAFJ leko_m_Page_098thm.jpg
ed0c7685d13cf0c22519902a39abc2e6
adf39f1d6e53c6b0de9d511a3fe19a8be2c9325e
8796 F20101202_AAAAEU leko_m_Page_085.QC.jpg
a81611450923be20776836877bf8fce5
a1441d1c4081d4154b7b6df907fbb76aec7c4e84
6337 F20101201_AACVVT leko_m_Page_127thm.jpg
589eab29311c69da2ba8c81187608b9b
59276b4f4dc65754bdadcfc1afa39e74d5358dea
83124 F20101201_AACWCC leko_m_Page_127.jpg
910c792b9407e3c1d7b9bd67ae0f6d66
42d34a010da45bb01c17f15fcee790e54a9d64c0
90068 F20101201_AACWBO leko_m_Page_109.jpg
2ba4955cab74cadf00641253c4343a7f
9891d52c7ea8df001fa4d1153c1c7fc450c6ad6e
27896 F20101201_AACVWI leko_m_Page_078.QC.jpg
138eaf5fe64ee048048920b291cd43af
65e6af21c09fe3fd81f2821868f5aec6cd553e17
91409 F20101201_AACWAZ leko_m_Page_080.jpg
c5feda11c8f5a7e7ffb7f1a74e273c58
b97664a4fcf8eb77aa2c5362223fadc22622d2bb
29818 F20101202_AAAAFK leko_m_Page_099.QC.jpg
b826eba5f8ca95182c4f04a310483b2b
ac71ad434e21063c22829cf5d36bbfaaf7c3a666
2935 F20101202_AAAAEV leko_m_Page_085thm.jpg
95d2ef16b68fc37c29ded9be8499bdad
b17aea3222a125730cd5857de62c0126cbac4635
89671 F20101201_AACWCD leko_m_Page_129.jpg
5dde4ba8b519a2bb345ae5802f93572e
3b5756d43bf5a5c75b1c8e57419aa8fa9c08c65e
86507 F20101201_AACWBP leko_m_Page_110.jpg
7a37054b0b6a92faa4a7de71bda2fa1c
55d6dcb3a9b923cfc0c4a1d6e6a5385752bb3e0d
F20101201_AACVVU leko_m_Page_095.tif
28f4259e8a03d41ebf5abf686e172ca5
6f4e05e7784c07ebb57e65e1e14e647bc2990894
6432 F20101202_AAAAFL leko_m_Page_101thm.jpg
3b0d95ea2c1635c8ead4ba7e3d88b973
e3ec23a0ab85112250360bbf108e452b7de20e49
14412 F20101202_AAAAEW leko_m_Page_086.QC.jpg
44c8fbbe90b551987ffc3e401498f63c
f3f82b0d57c8ee050ed23a4c8e6ea4b5fc46d855
82369 F20101201_AACWCE leko_m_Page_131.jpg
e44435c580bce5669996f147a0d3bcd4
4e9d7c1a6baa82c81b0cd9ffabcb47445b34d225
83834 F20101201_AACWBQ leko_m_Page_111.jpg
0ec9184a502b5016f4b53d7baef60a25
4063d1191d44ac80c41b9dff5a5eaa757ad58f74
F20101201_AACVWJ leko_m_Page_019.jp2
8a9a9ea6cf90b09330a64cbc5f52af85
3b2181eb189148204faf124f4445b2ee4c8c2da1
80560 F20101201_AACVVV leko_m_Page_096.jpg
d3d7ac78f5be03d7c4978b3fbf025372
17002c525ea7d8dd471ebf2a58face60a9e595b5
26243 F20101202_AAAAGA leko_m_Page_119.QC.jpg
5f26cfc9c6c9041210d2dbc10e2d1cfd
010e90321844cce1247ef2439daa666497538432
3331 F20101202_AAAAEX leko_m_Page_086thm.jpg
7c27f4278250c54ff151123757088163
f92430487000aac6c127ed54da64b19cca7adc0a
37612 F20101201_AACWCF leko_m_Page_134.jpg
6d54945c7663286a69f5b1879de53d48
acfe5698582adf93e1f459fc234067306f099337
89322 F20101201_AACWBR leko_m_Page_112.jpg
6027c1842dcd9a7e02cf6b6b7f76954f
3d92a052be76dad6c34dccf9fb6d1e0c9d75604c
533 F20101201_AACVWK leko_m_Page_002thm.jpg
69e355d50a7f569aea17898b6b72f9a6
2231c544d51dfbb12924127185a7a9bb8ea13dc9
92603 F20101201_AACVVW leko_m_Page_128.jpg
b40b1a7bed6850b8c8f733f3ad8cdcae
307e4c8e283695fcd89968b248b32cfded258146
6596 F20101202_AAAAGB leko_m_Page_119thm.jpg
98683ca7524ac92a7dd9067d4d4f35e6
ed3eb838bebd620e69c107f1cedc359f54fa8026
27880 F20101202_AAAAFM leko_m_Page_103.QC.jpg
2b90fc38a6df9caae3c7c97ff605f7b9
82b99779de3eb9451b5e65aa5a7282fc0f81b85a
28542 F20101202_AAAAEY leko_m_Page_087.QC.jpg
01799fa0bb107c2dea69fa46255d6877
da3a75a12bd3a1d10145c14febb85b3518eff000
13937 F20101201_AACWCG leko_m_Page_136.jpg
fab09b5506eced02dd88c215ba193cc0
9a679d04476ac248bec1f614559d6f1aa83adcbd
6850 F20101201_AACVXA leko_m_Page_173thm.jpg
c144eaeff18ef7dffcdc6c146b38fa9e
aae3d9a9d4b390022a9608473f7f6f162105da9d
88996 F20101201_AACWBS leko_m_Page_113.jpg
89e0c41d17c350e677990f9f711032bf
bb4766eba2106c04a4e3171baaa78163fdf9580f
24173 F20101201_AACVWL leko_m_Page_088.QC.jpg
2c8ead21222ea92678b82fe474f37517
738b51fc4d7175eb04cf4339d25d5f408ec844a0
6925 F20101201_AACVVX leko_m_Page_079thm.jpg
5934292b6245e375ce76b6c24674064d
44ca10f53607be77ca9576a8c224a5c14f5335ec
6388 F20101202_AAAAGC leko_m_Page_120thm.jpg
731d0d089648823d1cff1402adb90b87
4d6368eb4edb5d4659eab027104132b6833ac463
27654 F20101202_AAAAFN leko_m_Page_104.QC.jpg
7e6951bee33001b7637d506c974135f8
89a0d6be3fc92a95a038f53557eba683722e0974
6642 F20101202_AAAAEZ leko_m_Page_087thm.jpg
7dea7d45165b20626fc6a6780ec4a7cf
1cf405d04ade729cf27508f0314e7a44c1caadc6
87315 F20101201_AACWCH leko_m_Page_138.jpg
5d3fc44f7b752b8d53014bc4991c7b0e
e06413d235a8170cfdcc09001997d4c550af3375
89882 F20101201_AACVXB leko_m_Page_038.jpg
54dd8e4141cb873605fed89a2067f6af
12ee9ed8a9abe07c2fa3fae6640956002cfc820c
6051 F20101201_AACVWM leko_m_Page_055thm.jpg
ac9576ed5a0470eed0f4d5bf32e36171
09317d84e5fdb94b114aea7153d414e0c13381b9
6651 F20101201_AACVVY leko_m_Page_145thm.jpg
0fa2b2906a348297b126f25660fdcb7a
3f8b75b0b917307f3ca3ee8047d7bdd14ae29157
28451 F20101202_AAAAGD leko_m_Page_121.QC.jpg
a670b360e8aed7084280626be4bae69b
22834a37b3c41c0e939f3ce0c7316081645c1df5
6787 F20101202_AAAAFO leko_m_Page_104thm.jpg
fdd263f6e1a093f2c2de0beb8854f821
c694de26d885ca552039bd5c705f32d271a62271
91659 F20101201_AACWCI leko_m_Page_139.jpg
de930cee60218122f6bd7187d6e325e6
0c98b78030b077252edd7b77ab840e9fe3170b65
18170 F20101201_AACVXC leko_m_Page_182.QC.jpg
04f813889c0bcb81ed9e6f898102d9e5
cf03ead665a6902e7728b45013ffca9afc1c7c56
98070 F20101201_AACWBT leko_m_Page_114.jpg
2bf25f68309b6cb5b766bbc3b138db7e
e8254c35ad3a4b7cc3d51a45f1984b3e8f6409cf
6817 F20101201_AACVWN leko_m_Page_130thm.jpg
6ad8c8d812bafa27da588c20a2fe7994
e53d9b58e7d6bc09dea104426d8bd23ee4735791
F20101201_AACVVZ leko_m_Page_078.tif
5e8796f9766cda79613db48ebbcf5ac6
04cf12d52271cdc57c9516fafe8df7a4be59fb04
F20101202_AAAAGE leko_m_Page_121thm.jpg
80ea900f2cf51e9ce124e9fbc23411b1
19c17e5c093d6bf325b9a768f5f7d784d68af850
6752 F20101202_AAAAFP leko_m_Page_105thm.jpg
9fc3288c0964d0e8cde3e7583778abe5
0b74e2a1bc2ec140e1a15b72802c8a8733118af7
92248 F20101201_AACWCJ leko_m_Page_140.jpg
12f4f5a86de9ef195e1da87407c89435
1117c30a3f73b1e979ee20e6e245d0a4d2ce1c51
121028 F20101201_AACVXD leko_m_Page_176.jp2
046e233b1c00e90bca000b521984cb8f
d2bcabc188af09da9215ef9c94f67d5ebc7eb774
89598 F20101201_AACWBU leko_m_Page_116.jpg
2a413dbf0c039623c6e188fec83de193
e2cf5cbc3f567f0dda54005c079b31c6dfa7000e
F20101201_AACVWO leko_m_Page_021.tif
20eb822e57405a340c4c2d19d79a7129
9af550353de93da3626685ded4c65048d3724e02
28517 F20101202_AAAAGF leko_m_Page_122.QC.jpg
e52f4e0d0a931ff452fd8e699be8c871
b9932421e9738db3e93f2489393f53e31e121684
6586 F20101202_AAAAFQ leko_m_Page_106thm.jpg
fa68ff927d4cd93da6ae1a2f68e37809
b9a75852560b5d6d9ad80745cec78898a7846234
92489 F20101201_AACWCK leko_m_Page_142.jpg
b6cd1753cb45127dba8723cdc0d2284e
8bda3e3795a8576f2aa2dccc1473f0d581f6a025
87833 F20101201_AACVXE leko_m_Page_153.jpg
0973bd93b9253778c58f564dd8222e1c
1ed5befc9ece2507ddfb8cd41adeb171a3215a36
83238 F20101201_AACWBV leko_m_Page_119.jpg
3f496ef15c2be4391945e9d9a2eff114
e1d88b219fb28f59509d3d6ee179b074a5a60db7
26220 F20101201_AACVWP leko_m_Page_025.QC.jpg
48bd6e9937a8341309c26e66d83dfa10
8bac0f8379d1d6282667329caa7e5cda78aff063
6969 F20101202_AAAAGG leko_m_Page_122thm.jpg
31c6522d89738edfd4a1e12d9ea0df60
a90dc5892b28d1a6124c7d2b562ed29d6d07a410
6803 F20101202_AAAAFR leko_m_Page_107thm.jpg
40d770a4ee4be9ebb1e84f0f1a0cb6ce
6e5deb770beeddad4954a3eb0cb96b42de8e52b2
90167 F20101201_AACWCL leko_m_Page_143.jpg
3820f88135ca4105924421fafa1ed3d9
8ed7720e1680f17090883d995b0447670cd27220
4369 F20101201_AACVXF leko_m_Page_008thm.jpg
f76bbec61f9bec51f26f389951df5b1d
9f5c17b09824ffdf1ac916512bc78425be925ba1
88975 F20101201_AACWBW leko_m_Page_120.jpg
0dfed57e721996015f78a8af3a27010a
367a43b37c03a6c26e80b99ee6c549c01466cc06
6211 F20101201_AACVWQ leko_m_Page_163thm.jpg
a4bbfa3e555c9904473d8b4d12dec35f
b3bf1d03f387b4699f32cf51c5c08915df53fc08
28539 F20101202_AAAAGH leko_m_Page_124.QC.jpg
2e6be6ed0c9abc22c91187064c8e81ec
1bfb1ded72513dcac9eec4252acb15e1774f75fd
6687 F20101202_AAAAFS leko_m_Page_109thm.jpg
2af3f3d79557d993360c4311e0fdea0e
500e70ec96a12c8d89086f502342a46d563339d5
89927 F20101201_AACWCM leko_m_Page_145.jpg
d0008ac70c040c3cd78a07eef486be1b
15cfafb85a01f89a6ef4ee85657b4dee622fafaa
19823 F20101201_AACVXG leko_m_Page_132.jpg
7edb726ea91b8a0d40573b1f1e120675
624420dd70e061e0e8a295b540611eeb8b8c0ec3
91707 F20101201_AACWBX leko_m_Page_121.jpg
7c386fd331cd87a55b67a7b77d2402a4
56c356ca427a6b63a1d7cace195eb1dbb19fd2e6
29146 F20101201_AACVWR leko_m_Page_077.QC.jpg
c2515571421a7a5dd5556dbf91e9c0a8
26aed1e4dce58ff17ba03a4635bf94c947c930d5
89916 F20101201_AACWDA leko_m_Page_165.jpg
894f7962b0c650bd9a49459c813b03f0
603d9bec8a9b4cc239e4f08eebc58ae74c6679ca
6353 F20101202_AAAAGI leko_m_Page_125thm.jpg
1eae7c798a186b86983765b0cbe986ec
862fbd9126be625ba2e487f53795c0c79b3ec4a7
6168 F20101202_AAAAFT leko_m_Page_111thm.jpg
e5a54f0e9dd319061f7bfa1067aab355
a7e4ae4f4ce6ebbfa67db591d21558a5e12d5ef0
95936 F20101201_AACWCN leko_m_Page_146.jpg
7386f3758633649f9abedf89a4ddbbf7
d5bb100a233621ba8e7fd4c8144b38971adad3bf
75532 F20101201_AACVXH leko_m_Page_008.jpg
161d6cfbe1c05b5c71ee150dd59c7ec9
a03f1a50386ec7287ce990516898ab5f188577c2
95323 F20101201_AACWBY leko_m_Page_122.jpg
0c88f5c891d62b4f4515fb23f307971d
64ba785d5270c0f9d372e8ffa4d1edc0ebfa2a3f
F20101201_AACVWS leko_m_Page_127.tif
691f57aeb4505a054e444d242c12c1ef
01e8924f70cff0a36a2d71c0394e7b3abd5690d9
89522 F20101201_AACWDB leko_m_Page_166.jpg
9edfd33dd6c12e4e51db68144b35806e
d1e6c66ccf2da45083d112a8a37f6bc19f28d3bd
29046 F20101202_AAAAGJ leko_m_Page_128.QC.jpg
e7414549c080142958c8721468dfe3f0
e662626c44afa1dc81b8416f5fdc6731cedd411f
29138 F20101202_AAAAFU leko_m_Page_114.QC.jpg
5835f69bc72460ba1f94bb17513dd577
f1060c00e3d8fb20dd578cb4d7aec46d162cffa0
92098 F20101201_AACWCO leko_m_Page_147.jpg
7e6944c5e4c62d72c4b8649d6c9066f3
c44c944f36d481012ad8d9851fd50395927e437d
27786 F20101201_AACVXI leko_m_Page_171.QC.jpg
8d631eba246fc23a18bcc665df1c7cd3
5e9eb76c4fbe8bb502ab7703c904280e9e65d112
89585 F20101201_AACWBZ leko_m_Page_123.jpg
a0c96b99cc8799d41199c469edc60781
3569329d5089710678d24b4e3f4754cb13e587d1
98225 F20101201_AACVWT leko_m_Page_170.jpg
12c9d5e7de13a7147ac8801403897a8e
d25c25a4fef04cb9cf60a28a2fbd61edcc78b487
88130 F20101201_AACWDC leko_m_Page_167.jpg
0787a6d4198e3e6fc090de0f559dd2cf
22d8fed927bd02894cfde2a737fd7f36c44bc0ee
6935 F20101202_AAAAGK leko_m_Page_128thm.jpg
8b63c986c1d5dcf60425b0b443e1a095
7bc4fc6beb6c790b333e4f8085f2c2d08de143a3
6784 F20101202_AAAAFV leko_m_Page_114thm.jpg
716fd831d39c6c74e5527a1aa5007402
7c1e3dd49a398d93e697559efc16baa24255dbdd
88995 F20101201_AACWCP leko_m_Page_148.jpg
4d05061ed6f8213646187862f3b4525e
49ba78d4b7516da059a82680a6d179f6adc3013e
30671 F20101201_AACVXJ leko_m_Page_022.jpg
e6dd7f4dba072701138c317b11730051
e4ad3f605248c412040b75384e19771500fc3de6
F20101201_AACVWU leko_m_Page_023.tif
f19fd9321b971f674212710865025b33
166b1721f18ec0eb3a145d4b91caaa7ecf720721
88581 F20101201_AACWDD leko_m_Page_168.jpg
b33671fdb0afd24cf6294ab35f61bd6b
35d2fcca736cd72625da75f2879a8e602c0cff28
6669 F20101202_AAAAGL leko_m_Page_129thm.jpg
f3f5f49388b549a87ec0d49a805dbd0f
25e423e4840cf02f18ad10fc1746d574f8cbcda8
6600 F20101202_AAAAFW leko_m_Page_115thm.jpg
30a5266ee1dde01b85eca5886c3e77a7
2ac5a94e47088093428d0666836e5bb208e0fa48
86071 F20101201_AACWCQ leko_m_Page_149.jpg
35abc920b67d11f0970a076035fb1f76
9687cf10eb006619f8733394fbb53c557300f803
F20101201_AACVWV leko_m_Page_170.jp2
9e6c7b6a4adc30ebed9289e859d63b67
b0bc8113eaf669ea4e1fe9ea88620dce2845dbc9
92715 F20101201_AACWDE leko_m_Page_173.jpg
7db40ee086fd7b6bbe6fe28891404ee5
946dd20c0539017d8b347543595590ba83fd7ab2
6598 F20101202_AAAAHA leko_m_Page_150thm.jpg
451f146c4a6e4a359a1335fa09b1d3d8
cb73e680e4d9df10feac3c4713d83f2183b1cf41
28221 F20101202_AAAAGM leko_m_Page_130.QC.jpg
740c475b7a66765ebc54af7c419bdf77
7493a0f0866e581c1c3d2db4e028b024a8e00c93
28630 F20101202_AAAAFX leko_m_Page_116.QC.jpg
646ecf62d038845f7f0d623e7b32ced1
528cc2c2a1f45d8368cf2acd87f101f65a6433ea
94086 F20101201_AACWCR leko_m_Page_150.jpg
3b96d6758c5bcff8efa60a0e9e5bec8f
a9700799626ffe9908e08edf7843766202a77a53
F20101201_AACVXK leko_m_Page_153.jp2
082ff0b0de74212768a78aea70600793
6c06f3451b27ed460fc5eea23cebb59c0a0e5ed7
F20101201_AACVWW leko_m_Page_095thm.jpg
998c56664f34529adc50cc246e7c1ddb
98cc1aa821c9dd86d26fcbbac6512a4df7b53bdd
92703 F20101201_AACWDF leko_m_Page_174.jpg
45e392c1d28ad5253f4091efea1371f3
aa55294d571d9e3e72627328a30bc6fa41dfa53e
26703 F20101202_AAAAHB leko_m_Page_151.QC.jpg
3ebf599d5100850c451ba5b351c9d94f
e02ec0acdf9c299fa40f8f04875d45d38d99af36
6558 F20101202_AAAAFY leko_m_Page_116thm.jpg
6333df1259200eb7f08808322cea2121
d62d5974e8a508046a4cd3157e388332c62548ae
F20101201_AACVXL leko_m_Page_010.tif
2e2931c0319e32e251696dbb603ef12d
68c11489663e728a2e07f1ce19d3d73b2e87e4e5
F20101201_AACVWX leko_m_Page_140.jp2
8ac4ba89dccde45a558c3dc6df5448e9
1987b7ba22db8e50a6b0c39219cf700cdb15e24b
91216 F20101201_AACWDG leko_m_Page_175.jpg
fc99a1a30774a250e56c4db55f612bdd
28bde94e39a69e9a6457c6dbc9eb4ca10e62a969
F20101201_AACVYA leko_m_Page_189.tif
a74966b9824b4d41dd1d8c6395628e1a
56d883f888ad5606dcfafeb5c2ada96e60b5243a
93680 F20101201_AACWCS leko_m_Page_152.jpg
a9e87416dc8b86cbd302e426da349d8d
af3338d206dc4853925fa14559b105cc17bd0840
29684 F20101202_AAAAHC leko_m_Page_152.QC.jpg
3072d9cfebccdd25d86bc1612005f1f7
81265f6f544ce5531c3cacde2410219acf3c74f3
26275 F20101202_AAAAGN leko_m_Page_131.QC.jpg
bc282f4545db0877c1464f74c4d948ec
110225b10b3d7e260ebe34ea63027a88f2122fa5
26496 F20101202_AAAAFZ leko_m_Page_118.QC.jpg
c698d7fa87e1ea8915905d023e2605b4
793cc768897e0de5256ea6be428ee264bfaccbc6
102949 F20101201_AACVXM leko_m_Page_201.jpg
198cfeb4e975d89e719a57f8f8199281
4ee0947d7e4c72c8d404d14ef4a6fc8b3c536749
91954 F20101201_AACVWY leko_m_Page_040.jpg
d2c485b67fc63151d0f313ca72e41389
de340b4a9de19580d80f10120e7c1c053692431c
11460 F20101201_AACWDH leko_m_Page_176.jpg
12e01c51f5e8431448d83e4a095cafb1
fd1bfef1c8979f620615f44b4a113a9011369359
F20101201_AACVYB leko_m_Page_140.tif
89455d67d2299ea10f0b20a33ee5d139
a94f5d5cdafc882becb5eff56d919691fe6a7aed
90002 F20101201_AACWCT leko_m_Page_154.jpg
cecb8969664e9f4720ba8a82fa805b1b
7cfc3e105383c734e2d6e1916359a34e9890944d
6751 F20101202_AAAAHD leko_m_Page_153thm.jpg
adcfc6e3cd845a6edb15febccda1bd21
b403faccbb567bdc64eecaf1964b5a35fadcc3b7
6275 F20101202_AAAAGO leko_m_Page_132.QC.jpg
c998039393a3c678bbae3cfc7430fc8f
fcc2a776ebcf46fa935e2e54a52bd063e0d40aa4
514191 F20101201_AACVXN leko_m_Page_085.jp2
fa4b070cfdc438e049716e2ae33e0837
4c7ff980d5505e289ff28bc09f8875499e7f95cb
27750 F20101201_AACVWZ leko_m_Page_167.QC.jpg
d4a39ff6be7c1a1f53266ab98f683205
eea0bf9a35cdce66a630ec66226c661390953134
34088 F20101201_AACWDI leko_m_Page_177.jpg
4d4bbaf26ad74e858abc295266340139
d7c1eb27e01d128d3e18a527001cea0f399b54d7
25747 F20101201_AACVYC leko_m_Page_160.QC.jpg
1c3ce7732f2755dcf6045053a559227c
3daf5d91474fa429b9e41c48c4c3916a6c4ed442
27839 F20101202_AAAAHE leko_m_Page_154.QC.jpg
13501af7ff8066fb8986d9dda60e5c5b
e1b3cc3e05f0ce64c6c5d4853bdb483a133c79e4
10230 F20101202_AAAAGP leko_m_Page_133.QC.jpg
c3982d5e4517a310ee4df7b6cf3138cb
7633ebee36b887ae556b04679ca885d41edc37da
6683 F20101201_AACVXO leko_m_Page_057thm.jpg
2c5cfa97502e5a8592139df893366ce5
2a15083eed514ea0001d85debadd4a47d43a28d1
143341 F20101201_AACWDJ leko_m_Page_178.jpg
632c0848b1345500c7d02d88de4fdea1
ee92cb6ff1d011d9992136f971eb277f5eacb1c0
6293 F20101201_AACVYD leko_m_Page_009.QC.jpg
6663a4f59066c71efe76494be5c0813b
59ddc15630a5aa3b40404084d998ddfead3f117a
90688 F20101201_AACWCU leko_m_Page_155.jpg
c66ae9950b93f491238c6283b0409128
701e078e8bce9250800e60f06fa79eeacd04a383
28608 F20101202_AAAAHF leko_m_Page_155.QC.jpg
9f9478aae7011d44df61326c607951a7
9e7671a779f6f65e85ae25ac9b721d8817a5d78d
11457 F20101202_AAAAGQ leko_m_Page_135.QC.jpg
225843ef95e1fc44aeb49637e4d662ac
1a2512edecbf72639e2fbacb0f807b32ed5ee7f9
81619 F20101201_AACVXP leko_m_Page_075.jpg
a70e3d17722b54b75e44be46260a78e3
c17e3df86dabe57cd7ff91ab7435f43928e39f5f
124990 F20101201_AACWDK leko_m_Page_180.jpg
adb0085c63a9d546c372eb6a8d2c3562
40c3fe219b5fc98b9c517a884ad2e4eec6c35f85
28100 F20101201_AACVYE leko_m_Page_038.QC.jpg
15e5a828ab6cf8c684192ff47d246bd3
96be9db4dc2157af17471d0dae42cfc25c81f996
85927 F20101201_AACWCV leko_m_Page_156.jpg
4709ff2dfc3715cf1cd5365fbca73443
4b756b82a9a41e18a7fa9264ffdb3a9cdaa5127f
26756 F20101202_AAAAHG leko_m_Page_156.QC.jpg
18ddac5eca5f1100adbb8e6b076ecf5b
ae96f2be5b66427a42258f4956111f0276e3a60b
4125 F20101202_AAAAGR leko_m_Page_136.QC.jpg
0809ac78e29fa8ba5fde0c013258e637
c08ca9427084e4aaee8483bc72b7ce410e8224ad
86324 F20101201_AACVXQ leko_m_Page_090.jpg
693f6303228e529ff5aa6e5802a32b70
cc283647a91224d5ce2db34bf321ceea5d39e61a
128996 F20101201_AACWDL leko_m_Page_181.jpg
b05a8610e4ef810502d8445122c8dfbe
008b99e92785932f82a21e98f507ab0df7e3256c
F20101201_AACVYF leko_m_Page_115.tif
692c106f68841c5bd8c0a320ee0a4c8c
5bd9f103b1ddedff5985c3b1ae07e5ef52681b40
83698 F20101201_AACWCW leko_m_Page_160.jpg
ba2f7cc38b927b7245d61f2a611a78f8
46c06f828d20551e104c82cf13865df12a1a2267
879 F20101202_AAAAHH leko_m_Page_157thm.jpg
fd7e7012a8f7d6df83b37aa188648512
b101a93635fca4f1436b06a4ef7d633da311726b
29142 F20101202_AAAAGS leko_m_Page_137.QC.jpg
366dffaa72137d2a462382041b4354db
907e0e2c540ec8327d93d7f02099a81140ef3494
6604 F20101201_AACVXR leko_m_Page_137thm.jpg
1d964951d07e01039104549302e69bba
b4341c6869bdd0764153da3ca01afddecc95b360
107159 F20101201_AACWEA leko_m_Page_203.jpg
402a4ee77ce54ee6bc2e23290ca1734a
9d7e81533c2a512cf110120767810ccddda7cafe
65060 F20101201_AACWDM leko_m_Page_182.jpg
9b6c38009c22b66827e8810df6015a90
eb971aaf8040092e8df43ab54f456faef617d6bb
28052 F20101201_AACVYG leko_m_Page_057.QC.jpg
aadfaf4b2fce830162c6a0964682c017
ebd9948b2cf43f480e017f2717c56dda7155fe44
90401 F20101201_AACWCX leko_m_Page_161.jpg
7934b6090ff83aee3e4843ae34f55440
4c2abf1e639e463c337ecf87b25e8cfd086aaf1b
9392 F20101202_AAAAHI leko_m_Page_158.QC.jpg
d316bdd2c3cc8e7254922fcda0bf07d7
f4b67a12bfe3d5311531ebc8f295902271b990b9
6398 F20101202_AAAAGT leko_m_Page_138thm.jpg
e8d363d0bfb76bc03e6d8f7fff6b23f2
61aef0490c19beca1357d099816bf6d41dc1ad59
F20101201_AACVXS leko_m_Page_187.tif
a2fc5b16dc229caef6d3e5966ddd7f73
cd0bf65ae2d991790cbffdd364096443e6cbbf46
101512 F20101201_AACWEB leko_m_Page_205.jpg
80a1763721cdac42026fda41986a7d09
53f9572568e87daaef8d1f1ffc24274794e3c4b1
43520 F20101201_AACWDN leko_m_Page_183.jpg
05fe6190b1def11dab6c614c5419bbc3
572a20f4807afa562df342905492b3eb54aa572d
27565 F20101201_AACVYH leko_m_Page_153.QC.jpg
6595af6814b678c6c9f5476ed4c061ce
8b2c96945a01d129c685da092ccc440f4d3003a0
85719 F20101201_AACWCY leko_m_Page_163.jpg
e8304f8f7afac3744e746e41b5cc26f6
eb859b85823dccabd9670af09f247316cf2622c5
2316 F20101202_AAAAHJ leko_m_Page_158thm.jpg
a71be4d04ca06064d8aa961ed274af2e
0691c411e8fb89beb57006b7d2ce75c731a503ba
F20101202_AAAAGU leko_m_Page_141thm.jpg
bea324441b3629d2b6d8aa18ba07fc3d
38bbd813bdbcdfaf2221c086615d3777f1f5d24a
F20101201_AACVXT leko_m_Page_039.tif
b5355d2ff18c33306f8201a54250cebc
8c98fcd6ea407c8814db944d4e291137eed89534
81029 F20101201_AACWEC leko_m_Page_207.jpg
f763e57adc4e1bf22f2ae09ce7b128ce
20501d72e53ed31d5a321bff4c905c9cba316dd3
49207 F20101201_AACWDO leko_m_Page_186.jpg
d201797277f32dcf118182dc881047b8
6c58822a53ff12151edd16b699a984c5b6edd131
44999 F20101201_AACVYI leko_m_Page_185.jpg
89da1218fc01e215b36acc9325bc2d1f
444f35f73c3aa665cea4aaa60b9bb5e2fa9c6adc
87370 F20101201_AACWCZ leko_m_Page_164.jpg
a8cdbdc701373a04c4baa7b37913c6c2
fadbeec370c27b6fb63b7c2f8d93f4dd7f20e709
2714 F20101202_AAAAHK leko_m_Page_159thm.jpg
e3449f6796e539510f556bc0b693d819
dc31f1ab62923a59936f628dd376f88d46894ebe
6705 F20101202_AAAAGV leko_m_Page_144thm.jpg
5b59b7ffd0a518af824a30c8ba17cfdf
c05099e0e9a49616b9853c30ebdcfb1d099cf6de
6317 F20101201_AACVXU leko_m_Page_051thm.jpg
a4b08d61a11016e4acca0a1dd9649714
ed4bef53f81b9094891c5aae833be4c5e7722d3c
34565 F20101201_AACWED leko_m_Page_003.jp2
573e77daded0e30b8665bf5e5711902c
20d4cf15eb4d07db0d34f90a424ce6cf6c99c011
46560 F20101201_AACWDP leko_m_Page_187.jpg
f7676f5fb0a3dfba001058532d2e8392
b9926c193fdf0b0f293d539014891b96e2fce58d
26816 F20101201_AACVYJ leko_m_Page_068.QC.jpg
2a75e94a06a1a70a3eef34279089d8b5
7f19f2330da32a6856f2d2435cdb7892455cffd7
6289 F20101202_AAAAHL leko_m_Page_160thm.jpg
a4e7425f6c65abeb2f4a451d11afac7e
8692f611bf5b2c30515c3a78b50c596bae0c7b42
6689 F20101202_AAAAGW leko_m_Page_146thm.jpg
61d5a0e3ee37ba869d1b8de29331eb6a
3bf18434313063e181322ea03b7b318e5e4cd0ff
F20101201_AACVXV leko_m_Page_036.tif
8669dee177144cd8d8ed8a072371b4d2
9144dc61368e87c432ee0aa9c93f6834214c09c5
F20101201_AACWEE leko_m_Page_006.jp2
fbfd163b507d423569344e0740dbc67a
fdb4728fc58e397c3aed0fe814716dbadbc29641
75732 F20101201_AACWDQ leko_m_Page_188.jpg
18afef9093c9885f14557231ff843f70
c9d69e48cfc309ab290f9f2acfaf01d90a17d477
6215 F20101201_AACVYK leko_m_Page_048thm.jpg
a3d219499323247a6de18ce580f0d32a
2ae75065a4773ba12cc14d46c248daafe4010453
28551 F20101202_AAAAIA leko_m_Page_175.QC.jpg
702e374745a5566396e0ed0e8bf0f36c
7be563095acadaa39954fb39e42b9d6b645a9ed5
6365 F20101202_AAAAHM leko_m_Page_161thm.jpg
9627218e6ebc80a3894a0ccc722a3da3
93bd65f743a298edfcc77a9eb0b954017c77810e
29422 F20101202_AAAAGX leko_m_Page_147.QC.jpg
7837826dc103f2125e47c25eeb2d5803
08027f1fceb32239ff20b3464c12e4ef0aad4660
6837 F20101201_AACVXW leko_m_Page_043thm.jpg
f900c8cce674d951e219429f8a40af10
745e621b7f3e23d3143c8389bc81ef7196a440b3
F20101201_AACWEF leko_m_Page_007.jp2
6f4df2d4567f601839cd64c2a7d7303b
53dbf3afb908c1b393dc2824a3324273778dc4af
65112 F20101201_AACWDR leko_m_Page_189.jpg
d53f2a0bfb358c998b84b70447a4b78a
e40f62e329a800804bbd1098b50050c211f54b39
4119 F20101202_AAAAIB leko_m_Page_176.QC.jpg
ff819fb8dd89b5a7211c7511824ec309
19e0e5199a90c7b2edfd0c4f7f590edde5fdd4a7
6402 F20101202_AAAAHN leko_m_Page_164thm.jpg
eea1c391249b88232dedd3fa0cbe214e
4d299604ca767bb5616c175310d377dbbbaa695b
27347 F20101202_AAAAGY leko_m_Page_148.QC.jpg
1d3dfe1646b33284ccae765924ddc17b
7c38e94473e806e63d52121a2b5dc87332716b70
F20101201_AACVXX leko_m_Page_063.tif
cae8fab65b64d6a45b1cb4175c587f23
595dfdd544079da53fa4ba9c117b48cda4819ca9
F20101201_AACWEG leko_m_Page_008.jp2
31c343937c0cf1992397e15be62b0dc7
9df044d308fb0cf3aa3c0bc32fd811583a55bc63
1051984 F20101201_AACVZA leko_m_Page_026.jp2
76f6431268f91d95cd18946671e1baba
0c686e10ccaf9a2cdaa0a73fed2415eef37b58a2
68523 F20101201_AACWDS leko_m_Page_190.jpg
6af8c7c77f44f78bca9b79f2a8dad942
4b52f9a68b46facb32f41d0b96d15707a97c6ac3
87812 F20101201_AACVYL leko_m_Page_068.jpg
f7079437f5d4751d6bd6688a4804d106
cff7a5e8abb0f6d72e7f82b17cba81f27cfce064
10301 F20101202_AAAAIC leko_m_Page_177.QC.jpg
d62373715af6da58530540c4190d1e7d
c9a422bf4ce61104a216551ba7593a45afeb79a8
F20101202_AAAAGZ leko_m_Page_148thm.jpg
90558e152bd803db3beaaab445c5e440
b8c06a2091904dbf6aa9c6393a66b36736f21f30
1051940 F20101201_AACVXY leko_m_Page_122.jp2
2ee8f6740fd20cd330b228d79d6e10c0
6451a7c20fcea4f89f192cee3dc4e15ae2bd13ec
346024 F20101201_AACWEH leko_m_Page_010.jp2
9eee3ac7ec2e2dddb62efa2b954eea57
e4edf0eb46f03a8b99ae5649a1e3a178751a41f3
28302 F20101201_AACVZB leko_m_Page_112.QC.jpg
91c8b0f77cf736c37a06347d18fddf4b
0ef9e42041091d1fe7ba4093490e5c873d422742
41410 F20101201_AACWDT leko_m_Page_192.jpg
72b6b4f2c0d7a8eaaf45ff65df1f1133
5cb32ed66a970156810005bddadd06805795d030
F20101201_AACVYM leko_m_Page_120.tif
8671d685981741c5d68f63f45e62c30e
574f574efead0712108c838517d853fe16820f47
7038 F20101202_AAAAID leko_m_Page_178thm.jpg
8b62e53cebe223f30729cd311583354f
0320a40e32e6486471abc9cf036c9d9e50b6318a
27578 F20101202_AAAAHO leko_m_Page_165.QC.jpg
173858b92a4a4508aa0a8f1069a38333
c6f61c6edc109862fa08b3cdf47ff697b286f77a
4299 F20101201_AACVXZ leko_m_Page_182thm.jpg
c5ca0a5cf04cb3e16188abf35febfd78
98949c01d46a514855be1f3cf28f7cec5b50b292
F20101201_AACWEI leko_m_Page_011.jp2
21b594637eb94e4087ad5c34e57de10c
73c327ee3e54eedb413568d956c3322ce28e4a4e
27153 F20101201_AACVZC leko_m_Page_085.jpg
7204b4bec13ce05cb3682a745a7ebcd2
8513834e3e9c37a8f67810aff437ced4bf7eba3f
42674 F20101201_AACWDU leko_m_Page_194.jpg
437c33774f2b9c93dd5e503fb1878a4f
a5c24c447f74aedd97492ff67b99c19264c03a0b
22478 F20101201_AACVYN leko_m_Page_007.QC.jpg
c712f52e1185c1c120cd5afee584e584
15a92f64308ae9f644eea73718a7b4db5ab8179c
2129 F20101202_AAAAIE leko_m_Page_179thm.jpg
a4c31ac6aef395fc351a9fac79ed4bb4
baf9c59851baa372b8c1d9bcecae4f092e0d6ae6
6607 F20101202_AAAAHP leko_m_Page_166thm.jpg
88e82220fcf9d0f44d4264cde28229bf
2aad555139e86848e12b40bdf6ca0e319cf929d3
995939 F20101201_AACWEJ leko_m_Page_012.jp2
b2e04e39fe9d0181e82d3d4443939b42
8a09b236734ce9d07a640f8e71a5eaddc836b017
F20101201_AACVZD leko_m_Page_113.jp2
2cd7297fd8317b7a5d97ef8d0fdab795
99004290c2642690c0bdec532516cd4d6dfbfeb8
94233 F20101201_AACVYO leko_m_Page_137.jpg
7db79e35e52fd32337b0ecba5598ec90
2acf8d0887f3b482fc20d3ec209e7d7e62d0bbaa
31164 F20101202_AAAAIF leko_m_Page_180.QC.jpg
f7fde3e96a1ed3966a20f432949ca066
5b445fc3db9cce8b86e66969e48063801bd0aceb
6241 F20101202_AAAAHQ leko_m_Page_167thm.jpg
90ba93573406248922113e9e834f9c78
395ea1f17723164e5f0a8dd8b7dbea8cbe2d5f9c
1051925 F20101201_AACWEK leko_m_Page_013.jp2
f48ef189300f3716a8e77d4936e9b027
2c410034b13293084a285974c78ddd49c15c5a59
1051899 F20101201_AACVZE leko_m_Page_142.jp2
b792ddddfc03f14923642c278af3ad49
43a358eff8c23521227226bb5298b6e23dee35d6
24971 F20101201_AACWDV leko_m_Page_196.jpg
150de49104f80eb506184e96bb5995d6
e3f9938abd2efd41e91859078c73ecf02e48e181
578639 F20101201_AACVYP leko_m_Page_185.jp2
0c1ac69251731cdc6aa9812293d1617a
2c9c042627823034731660cdb5e357b75f692903
2936 F20101202_AAAAIG leko_m_Page_183thm.jpg
5c90561046b4bb87142e773c4d1367b7
257ae10eff29e2416d7a2c5d3274fa80825e823b
28567 F20101202_AAAAHR leko_m_Page_168.QC.jpg
cb73895ee1f4034efbb62f9a980b090e
d4c70582a9b50298fee021ff93cb8beeadfdb58c
1051911 F20101201_AACWEL leko_m_Page_014.jp2
fb794bd3aa0cc47482480044d626668e
045eb0f255db8f74641c70205484408ca7789ff4
F20101201_AACVZF leko_m_Page_177.tif
c21581daf86daa93e4725bb47a43a800
9e53bbb3ed3c38baf44e7cbee0eddb88c871e09c
32961 F20101201_AACWDW leko_m_Page_197.jpg
0d072b6cd5d7b7a36dd9616d73d502a4
5c16f64a4ade4e5935632e3032badaf2b51a4930
1051883 F20101201_AACVYQ leko_m_Page_160.jp2
77bc3d86372b63a59af298df0570d210
6bf6f18696463d227bd9a58eee82ebc3c6948039
3736 F20101202_AAAAIH leko_m_Page_184thm.jpg
fd7698f521d5da4b6e6b08e64a614e4e
12154187487060e08b8a993f41d41ff1b7aea97d
6863 F20101202_AAAAHS leko_m_Page_168thm.jpg
224f7013c27f782e3d495819e61f107f
afac7fb72cd38ca549da738125e06eb1bc12a119
F20101201_AACWEM leko_m_Page_016.jp2
99bbc46b2c4dc0b4f0b8e46309db4cbb
cfd15a1cd5cc738b4ded71db63d0e73bcb5406fd
F20101201_AACVZG leko_m_Page_020.tif
be33d49e8193186cad48facb2529e393
c886050ada0a9f942f79e280b5c77600a7609950
105757 F20101201_AACWDX leko_m_Page_198.jpg
59e6169aeacfe8f4c08f0991fb36c27f
5e1b71bc813c0813c4fc92ef035ac76e6aac460b
F20101201_AACVYR leko_m_Page_171.jp2
06bdc025799822b688dbb6bd65726792
392e7e7a63382b66407feccae1576b1000a0fc2e
F20101201_AACWFA leko_m_Page_041.jp2
c0deabe0c7359e3a6db8e2f5ffaddebb
1863c8258f9c7373e6c6595ce0bbbbd751fe7ca2
2888 F20101202_AAAAII leko_m_Page_185thm.jpg
a6e65d74881f9c630492cfe1c48cec84
3fa12bc5d75f2550e1c58f90618c634f1f71a7f1
29297 F20101202_AAAAHT leko_m_Page_169.QC.jpg
462054c4fdd6551b5320ef996bc14960
5a245429458985dbcf2ac510bbef4e97d8a555ae
F20101201_AACWEN leko_m_Page_017.jp2
02d11244856b3852784c57966c7da68b
afc4970ed61409d44254d09f52ce91778346adc3
1051903 F20101201_AACVZH leko_m_Page_031.jp2
cb26c1e8cb3a2f41c1a5507b3c3edfd5
f5586117db448cc8302338864afbc0cad302c86f
98678 F20101201_AACWDY leko_m_Page_199.jpg
4455b69540d03aa26dc1c73c9f0b2b72
4ec999bbf8bcab281b6b2dc1c5669def1d9705d3
10838 F20101201_AACVYS leko_m_Page_192.QC.jpg
dfe94f0abe06d77910a2b872f90d6b96
5b6f9d9e32bc6c630f1298aab9db4a7f109d9cd1
F20101201_AACWFB leko_m_Page_043.jp2
6dc31871293b62dffbb3c37b484848a0
fa10470fd22e6349cea346e3ac7bc73910979ec9
3164 F20101202_AAAAIJ leko_m_Page_186thm.jpg
852654dd9626feef4b793425699ae477
15edc9ef421d83c942ec01558e7a2ce26c3ffca1
31150 F20101202_AAAAHU leko_m_Page_170.QC.jpg
5492905b72867d5340ea6bdca96ea171
14f1968a22f0fdc58e1b32b50e2d4a58815f94f6
F20101201_AACWEO leko_m_Page_020.jp2
04c470609bafc87726eccefbe4a79e0c
d7885456e85261f341056762f7abf3c9a51ed726
49549 F20101201_AACVZI leko_m_Page_029.jpg
8cad58c181acce5f7af3351a69669db7
ead05893fd9e2f236768ee98319c1f142e27ec9d
99773 F20101201_AACWDZ leko_m_Page_202.jpg
26f2fd069432281c845ad699613942ef
c0a8b67b11564383ba0d758b86ea41434d1b950c
F20101201_AACVYT leko_m_Page_150.tif
78e7a6cbb9aacb2605fd38bcc354e704
86bb1cf4d852d16e72ff4dfb683b6556e08c59b9
F20101201_AACWFC leko_m_Page_045.jp2
4708b0a45ac14f9b8cb3c1d9b655db51
38ad0dc29c5b17d7b63bd5feb1479ace0715ee37
2819 F20101202_AAAAIK leko_m_Page_187thm.jpg
3077b1b61abb3e4c4fff7e61718b2993
a09791048916e33a408742748ffcb1e89fd000ff
7092 F20101202_AAAAHV leko_m_Page_170thm.jpg
561bfe6f953bec151bbebdc4e384c72a
86bcc00ee907a294133586777138b58c3f783211
F20101201_AACWEP leko_m_Page_023.jp2
3ddbd72fd40c89639c8a2441ed1ff76d
ba1201980520945e4ca12aa6766c43b315e6e341
27239 F20101201_AACVZJ leko_m_Page_117.QC.jpg
0927402ed1d0056f314886f907992196
df10691ab05ab6bc9337b557cd28d563194ac7ac
27997 F20101201_AACVYU leko_m_Page_001.jpg
db7f125df3bf090b77b68bdfe45a012e
599dbbfefcd905cca644475101d66a1c947e785e
1051917 F20101201_AACWFD leko_m_Page_047.jp2
ab84d233216ca6cd4d4f1cb4afd8c4d8
bd630ed75d913d62c1f6ab18f72ed1b379228184
20263 F20101202_AAAAIL leko_m_Page_188.QC.jpg
2f681f6eed3ecb4b375b50b24f4d816c
74742445ccda376285a4a17dccc00a47d009e555
6737 F20101202_AAAAHW leko_m_Page_172thm.jpg
a659ff7c032d5f990a1ca6d3657201e4
2697d04c66a6644fb1468ee0d159f1fc36dec609
F20101201_AACWEQ leko_m_Page_024.jp2
3d18196254a20c7859ddd4fa566cdc72
b2f750c6bc92dc80d6f4a181b0f073e46a3ef5a5
F20101201_AACVZK leko_m_Page_059.jp2
33127e09ee162794b465987e81c02d8e
74bf17339ea6966b1b1b930cef4e072b90a764f0
526268 F20101201_AACVYV leko_m_Page_159.jp2
c27abca387754c432383d3817b84bc9d
21c0f99973c50cacffbba085aa5d575deea3b5e6
F20101201_AACWFE leko_m_Page_050.jp2
7fe750fccb14eae0af485a876162a638
a5b952a32a3574ea50ba7181a02bfe8386cf8002
7151 F20101202_AAAAJA leko_m_Page_201thm.jpg
d6bc0e9f22a67d583a29e6c71de8cb74
4d94515ee37578b69875766d431a16f31d6093e6
5009 F20101202_AAAAIM leko_m_Page_188thm.jpg
5e0f254a4c88cd720af5f88402cb58b0
1273a51261fce75c1ec6c0216857323a066d5456
28494 F20101202_AAAAHX leko_m_Page_173.QC.jpg
3df1b12aca7113b51dad208d10afbf05
6c89a6377695308701ea6982d639aa21f94aecfc
F20101201_AACWER leko_m_Page_027.jp2
c980b3efe7d9e5b516b0847cd4e43653
8604b3402bc8425429ee31ba42f359b2868710e9
220298 F20101201_AACVZL UFE0022476_00001.xml FULL
c03ced79dc25167413c72e4a4414f482
917c7479f7503670f0c9db5e20b183c0381c8216
F20101201_AACVYW leko_m_Page_072thm.jpg
99ea78bf45402ec1773780306a8dbd96
cf582fb84d7886701145c15d51bc09df4d048a27
418221 F20101201_AACWFF leko_m_Page_053.jp2
ae084493d24571a36935bf8197b1dc8b
162c53d2bf811cc0d956b8054525a81b926f102c
26903 F20101202_AAAAJB leko_m_Page_202.QC.jpg
4a11b6988b4717cca7f90aae99940358
e7c2b2efa1761014f5c1903a29aab5e484524929
17236 F20101202_AAAAIN leko_m_Page_189.QC.jpg
9b3e86021b555c7260fc08d66d9b4ca2
629e994c68f8a1ba60ec922a1b87d7c741ca1fda
29061 F20101202_AAAAHY leko_m_Page_174.QC.jpg
49962d078763705e3351eaecc5a11c49
07235c2f9a17574c3264006fdc8f3d2a83094a93
924099 F20101201_AACWES leko_m_Page_028.jp2
14e61d987977dd18310032d48a067a58
19411e262bf1f5deed92a347f7fb72e248d501fe
6561 F20101201_AACVYX leko_m_Page_042thm.jpg
64425d180cf0b3feb3da3ed49ecd8a06
9a2cce266a1ebc96ed21d6c236f66aff41ed9fb5
1051951 F20101201_AACWFG leko_m_Page_054.jp2
690819b6e7fa4d6b7be57b1ec8d0db21
6d912787366ce9d8f453cadc53ca2fee5160c3ed
F20101202_AAAAJC leko_m_Page_202thm.jpg
b0df105017d5b47d751dd27dc4e389f8
3d3041effa40a2cc3d8ad480d9731bb030fbc185
4386 F20101202_AAAAIO leko_m_Page_189thm.jpg
cf3268ca0e727c3524bb8a9f24268251
6a30275c5e76af32415a1568068041f28aada095
F20101202_AAAAHZ leko_m_Page_174thm.jpg
9f31d8f64282bc4050898c3d0bf5842e
8d66330ef912fa450da90239962bedc2490c649a
1051956 F20101201_AACWET leko_m_Page_030.jp2
5cf2c9fa3ba5ed52fe119951123cb4a3
e918b99322d980a40f1ed9a520b58a524ec96edd
28319 F20101201_AACVYY leko_m_Page_161.QC.jpg
b90d1e2727f8f84bd9a09b3eb28100cb
d3d1957c619ba9fc11901209ea0d833a5a13775c
F20101201_AACWFH leko_m_Page_056.jp2
979ff72fd8fa3c1d0f6504d4c8bc7161
11a07856d62c20d8dd7411c051f5d2365eac3549
29118 F20101202_AAAAJD leko_m_Page_203.QC.jpg
fd6bed328e5f6b8c123fc0285c779182
9ca3815bf476e6e6dca4dacebea7246f73e1e874
F20101201_AACWEU leko_m_Page_032.jp2
c0afe0261ff56df1091f0735fe82ebba
5e5dbdc63387356dc22c9ff7f48bd81a162c7efd
74653 F20101201_AACVYZ leko_m_Page_206.jpg
822a573c6c43e19d2a990c6296ba7653
20724cb0dbbd6b36be58478dc4d55b1c0e5e3c22
1051905 F20101201_AACWFI leko_m_Page_060.jp2
4d9be389bbeb15c89d5989f38d7e24d7
c63793aa687c89eb9e1f17b34d803a41fcff0e93
7004 F20101202_AAAAJE leko_m_Page_203thm.jpg
a9eede298ed7010a3b0335217533e463
c29ed9707e56119ba5773895c2723607798eb8a1
4728 F20101202_AAAAIP leko_m_Page_190thm.jpg
050e9cd3ae0ec08267666f28794d8647
8ba4ed16d1eff8a4a1cb8bc014928e312c7e71ac
1051910 F20101201_AACWEV leko_m_Page_036.jp2
2fd762783d0ac30d6c206aad4e0d246c
1a82b75bc45f9a9b67806e067b51d501474a9040
4361 F20101201_AACVZO leko_m_Page_003.jpg
5bd40f20b165d0704af3b0a9e96e2afd
5b7f560ea458b32831f7759ebc942fe047a258f7
1034029 F20101201_AACWFJ leko_m_Page_062.jp2
28f6e973a0ce677d30a83c18a1db6d66
09ef1e66b08bcc531cb349a325927d5765d660a8
7213 F20101202_AAAAJF leko_m_Page_204thm.jpg
60142146737dd1e3dff10c16a9f7ba35
db23dde33e7be53c74db8d8be977c9c5f724b4c0
16689 F20101202_AAAAIQ leko_m_Page_191.QC.jpg
4befda6210790698eb0af55fa46cb841
3fd7365ee3ef858132ddfa13e248b74e59ef1313
90932 F20101201_AACVZP leko_m_Page_005.jpg
1b909161eac4ae88343f4f358d71c48e
8a6cb128acecb215f22bc2d1a4b17232af7f7d60
1051949 F20101201_AACWFK leko_m_Page_065.jp2
59a22de6fc0c786f3e9955b3fe1b72ea
5d6521ab6d36397a6dba57e5ed27132e7366a596
27435 F20101202_AAAAJG leko_m_Page_205.QC.jpg
9c122a02126222e37118a663cf79b6f3
8e7d7df135ad497de87015536cc27752051e52a9
2645 F20101202_AAAAIR leko_m_Page_192thm.jpg
bc93b58b911c457ce08459f43ba014b2
55bf9ac388bbf9db7b27769b8b5776455a713505
F20101201_AACWEW leko_m_Page_037.jp2
1b862404576160b7dd1a06ee2d71455d
65fcd34e0e57855748fddd7b11f4b8218222feb2
109173 F20101201_AACVZQ leko_m_Page_007.jpg
e3a2d4a5430976e19a4cdc93fb1932a4
16b33e481a649e6917f24ae510ea75a50537d9e4
F20101201_AACWFL leko_m_Page_067.jp2
8eafc600f3cdc450a2b9af654c6294e0
205f862fa4a2b9b64b9c3ee91d74431d03b04a3d
150851 F20101202_AAAAJH UFE0022476_00001.mets
2635bbef4aad2d738d4e7eb6f163a0f8
aa00809bb8312fe2999c102c9bfd394ecbe12f6c
2822 F20101202_AAAAIS leko_m_Page_193thm.jpg
81dac73aa0fa5354ef3e2f0aa950f03a
7a285009d900193c81a056fe28d614654f2b466e
F20101201_AACWEX leko_m_Page_038.jp2
439935651c3cfed053f41f3de4daf8de
f216319dd7e68ccf52ae7d1c4126ffdfd6369517
17994 F20101201_AACVZR leko_m_Page_010.jpg
6a08801d681b9bfa8aed4eae2b903734
0292d42599c7b49d00dea46659c62b690b5695be
1051986 F20101201_AACWGA leko_m_Page_109.jp2
e6177d54be3ead26960bb702a4275579
c80ceb273c1e3daeac19cb618c4bddb53d8f02c6
F20101201_AACWFM leko_m_Page_071.jp2
322e0c6cba146544c9fd915ac3173e99
ced92530d0af851c62ea85ddcfc1fe8f135fae11
11162 F20101202_AAAAIT leko_m_Page_194.QC.jpg
7e15bca7429fb461819a80ff6a176b56
345f461b9a69345168bc940908c4344980aea105
1051962 F20101201_AACWEY leko_m_Page_039.jp2
9c8b4ecccebf646d61ec5d5429824636
63221d25106df1552ab66809198558b875f31a91
81731 F20101201_AACVZS leko_m_Page_011.jpg
5e5a5afa1acc8d1798e7412d151c3ad0
303d5b7412b8f19532bbba7d357d674de6c091ff
1051882 F20101201_AACWGB leko_m_Page_110.jp2
ac2bb06280f41900aecd42f31b5c24ef
1aa1429b51add9c50eea65f22d00351e6ca508fa
F20101201_AACWFN leko_m_Page_072.jp2
c0deee7d32b7f94a1c3815213e3ad331
4966ab146adde46d6279483a4ff8f95e76fb635b
11311 F20101202_AAAAIU leko_m_Page_195.QC.jpg
3a2db42f9a7ea7930578b9c5ce548350
16c1f75ccff9ccb99048f0c294f986a03234830b
1051901 F20101201_AACWEZ leko_m_Page_040.jp2
2fb1074b6d3930bd02ad51b0fb304940
24e4de60725a42b631042337129dd768e6a8a5c7
93710 F20101201_AACVZT leko_m_Page_014.jpg
b7d64094f07ff38027c2a0f7f7dd898c
c9c760823bf117179e376b4b5ec48352ac3c6c39
1051912 F20101201_AACWGC leko_m_Page_111.jp2
a9666344ed9efddaf0fea3a72a3d9423
26de3f14d03ca5e0d519cb11c80a2613e1859a75
F20101201_AACWFO leko_m_Page_074.jp2
d804e3c8e59bab87892386bb517688e3
1593c122a26aadd7253023b2d597b32d44f78588
9176 F20101202_AAAAIV leko_m_Page_197.QC.jpg
7b20819e532439373eb9688794bee815
6bdc21218e1748042f27626ab99e2342fbeb4249
84668 F20101201_AACVZU leko_m_Page_015.jpg
a40afeeefae94782083349c6bb06df3a
b971af41a8aafd48174ac3580cea5c5b4011ada2
F20101201_AACWGD leko_m_Page_114.jp2
e6eb30136ad6ed763c1e6b2bde25e754
f70205fd4157042372db988138c65b1801284c6e
F20101201_AACWFP leko_m_Page_075.jp2
81175af28ebda9e25245fa0953acbbb2
c2714817bdb7b04131faaa3a34ef889a3d227da8
2242 F20101202_AAAAIW leko_m_Page_197thm.jpg
462ad506c174ac0bdeb60ffdac6cab29
6280a08301780c2d7a8823c3a846f8434468a5e7
93768 F20101201_AACVZV leko_m_Page_018.jpg
2b92d264305115285b5b90d934576fbf
9e299aefe4025866c27c60004ff4849114f4c344
1051934 F20101201_AACWGE leko_m_Page_115.jp2
85b34c5d6130d4c8ddda8fb5cbb6179c
47eb952fadfee0f69de032b0c7c9d096d7421d3d
F20101201_AACWFQ leko_m_Page_078.jp2
6c18eb25d274cb7e85083889b2f850c8
818bc103cb217d0a5bb179eb38f12511a24c6652
7053 F20101202_AAAAIX leko_m_Page_198thm.jpg
280cfa1e05ba60a5894ee25ad7edb2ac
f0cc768e27d1492dcd9c1d7d64e8a7c91a5cf02e
84462 F20101201_AACVZW leko_m_Page_019.jpg
bb744a97aeded661d246298fa7373911
007828ad3411500e0b3f483c02b8f615dc4f097a
1051937 F20101201_AACWGF leko_m_Page_117.jp2
a116913b7d000e533aa820c15b7bea47
b60c598e6609ba9c7dc2817debcbf2fb789fa89f
1051932 F20101201_AACWFR leko_m_Page_080.jp2
34e029e4c50fd6f90da5e121a62ba412
bb694436b0bfe673435923123c33c9d1f2fd5e40
6860 F20101202_AAAAIY leko_m_Page_199thm.jpg
d2615adbf79344cee21f1ee323ae5680
11592547aa80686223b3c9e53b050db4a900e233
93235 F20101201_AACVZX leko_m_Page_020.jpg
d2c1ffe550e8804a6bffa4ebeb69b1b2
ddeed0ec99a2031aa4266cab90bf40dcc6cc6ef0
F20101201_AACWGG leko_m_Page_119.jp2
bd1d81bb1c6ad06e606c7dca06830e56
4142810064ca8137b6cb7c1b2ffb56d91ffed4b1
F20101201_AACWFS leko_m_Page_087.jp2
29b4fe596d537c58ab86965b3b98eba1
a9cfce922616bb921fdb0ad0014fa6fa31e85c6b
26633 F20101202_AAAAIZ leko_m_Page_200.QC.jpg
1ae94f575e430eba2e58e3db638abc2d
08a5ba2e04fabae9c1706cb679b7e06a201b0e20
17353 F20101201_AACVZY leko_m_Page_021.jpg
bc1b1b393c4a0daa831f00f3479f8ea8
2dd9dd3b30ccb9d4ae1b2bc6e45e0542768ef0a0
1051897 F20101201_AACWGH leko_m_Page_121.jp2
c1efdbee2ec48765e89ec4675489e1bf
cd4105bdb2cc0bc9385d9cd5b8ce010efc142317
F20101201_AACWFT leko_m_Page_088.jp2
ed35e4b60ef634be974301f0bc99d000
095ecf7f86db854c4e77687f12ca84e3bc651dcb
91218 F20101201_AACVZZ leko_m_Page_023.jpg
c451b711fbe5028ac4758b9c6d38c8d5
9681a42a96a4e25d5cee04e207c9fd464666e618
F20101201_AACWGI leko_m_Page_123.jp2
6a4b0da164e070856f39eacd71737619
4292a42ad94bd01cc3010385b2d9fc20da49e487
1051961 F20101201_AACWFU leko_m_Page_089.jp2
4fcc1ed5e0e8592ee5594ef5e24187f8
d5489063b5e5b40e86b32a794d4ed021476ff67c
F20101201_AACWGJ leko_m_Page_126.jp2
0733d2d30ff9436c659f7be979e7191b
2eba15f8336d54e66100209416dade41bb5f543b
F20101201_AACWFV leko_m_Page_090.jp2
2efe09df68fce1100798708d4bbf6817
96ba9e64c87df3e90ee73a4af0f8bf097fb675cd
1051980 F20101201_AACWGK leko_m_Page_128.jp2
e3ad0450998561214d23337a7daec3ae
86f53e410405d312b1b2f31cd1f161ce795fec00
F20101201_AACWFW leko_m_Page_095.jp2
5e42f90202b52e71bc8c2652946c3939
4dc833bbc796c8b77ddf701ed291cb83d67461a0
F20101201_AACWGL leko_m_Page_129.jp2
9336bf6cc9fa4845b0b29c524b09ffff
7ca895d77c3c9eee8c2084532d0ce11e6dab7be7
F20101201_AACWHA leko_m_Page_148.jp2
57279839f062cf4c44a9e8df8e5b69d0
2513cb5187d504ebeadc92860eba1d2a0905aaf5
1051916 F20101201_AACWGM leko_m_Page_130.jp2
44659369c7f5ae81babffbf734481961
5c45232194f769649489a1ae637e15fa024ed217
F20101201_AACWFX leko_m_Page_100.jp2
d072b8b7296894391f545b4999e8be21
f4b9fa0a508a18d9995ed5fdb529594768f10227
F20101201_AACWHB leko_m_Page_149.jp2
683bf6f4219fa62e211864e3dae70595
8513ab2f8edf95007b8ce6dc6c5fd369d2d089d0
234048 F20101201_AACWGN leko_m_Page_132.jp2
92e2088b7e31d232238fd3b77634c7b2
0b31c0075342d246e05ea1237d708f8abb5cfb6e
F20101201_AACWFY leko_m_Page_102.jp2
719b3d3861845760be7525baec6e56b9
de055c3ff81206891b2cecb84919e9c876e3aad2
F20101201_AACWHC leko_m_Page_150.jp2
f4c0873d12888d86e3b66ece0d529840
031388cf65de47e0a6fd6195ec7835186702787e
731472 F20101201_AACWGO leko_m_Page_133.jp2
9bf6e06b83a62f6d060f5330fb0a15e0
9de220e97a086b68340ca68152785d2f992a2300
F20101201_AACWFZ leko_m_Page_106.jp2
5f249b944d3953016998ab422a9809b6
75a7e21189bcb11a131e17f35edb17c1df5712bb
1051964 F20101201_AACWHD leko_m_Page_155.jp2
d2b405be176cccf54bc2ec05298c3f94
0127a0e752432895a04423ff7b19074e876827fc
752890 F20101201_AACWGP leko_m_Page_134.jp2
69be36590a502a50f54b170049dc02e7
89963415fc5c67cfc56a80254f6fedceaa93483b
406462 F20101201_AACWHE leko_m_Page_158.jp2
525e2ff1d77e37c00bd5d121658899fe
a38df7a7d8f5102bc784807be0c2b9fd040db3f3
818475 F20101201_AACWGQ leko_m_Page_135.jp2
2d7d1a4b20528a72038b5134b87fcfa7
c5901b1bf03e83c5047d6dc106f6d6dc091ee59c
1051909 F20101201_AACWHF leko_m_Page_161.jp2
d77c4177ab91e12b39819acedfef9c1b
81d21a8cc0ecbfb2ec43e70c1d8079c15b17107c
236609 F20101201_AACWGR leko_m_Page_136.jp2
60365a11b3f4157c6ffea7a0e2aad6a2
a54092fbd09239fc5e5c76f1724243aa9e294bb7
F20101201_AACWHG leko_m_Page_163.jp2
9cb05cb785b0da06280d3c4c97e8d2f0
dbb0a839b4590d2f87c66f63fbc5279f78eedfca
F20101201_AACWGS leko_m_Page_137.jp2
2958c6c67238274365ae3224dcccb22f
58178659612b32fa35856e5c5f5acbcc06475057
1051942 F20101201_AACWHH leko_m_Page_165.jp2
3db853827568ab69db18d2b6ceb98152
94501cb4480752bc37b4a52a3ce4cb6923a21290
F20101201_AACWGT leko_m_Page_138.jp2
57d1becff336d83412bd2726bb406537
e9447c966731f12ee9beb177afbd1a17ef23d4bd
F20101201_AACWHI leko_m_Page_168.jp2
7f40c4ae680a590b6752b2427f643207
b86c143cb8244ee0d53a3db174e080ed93cfe9ab
F20101201_AACWGU leko_m_Page_139.jp2
a23ac0a0621006db36cb4ac44ace77a4
dd59de868d6de1312a15036e8d49913391d86265
1051952 F20101201_AACWHJ leko_m_Page_172.jp2
e97d3113960338edd813c6c67cabcfed
54c486b91e0f1ee57ee8254c21205a612fe905c5
F20101201_AACWGV leko_m_Page_141.jp2
1a5b8389f7e3ea9b70640f34c6fb5d47
51bb46a5511bd5cf069af94e52d3fc2d37fc1c5a
1051908 F20101201_AACWHK leko_m_Page_173.jp2
83ecf9a5970eae80c0a216fdb71142c6
753d4a150e344440fcb5db006e44003a1affeadd
F20101201_AACWGW leko_m_Page_144.jp2
b6d0429bfa701bd3b9571cb6fbeb3922
4d2afff89e452818c69585d7e37358ef6c02865f
F20101201_AACWHL leko_m_Page_174.jp2
5094708cba67023c1651c7b23a3882b2
ab6a3df3a37af1497636d7541713decd10dc4011
1051930 F20101201_AACWGX leko_m_Page_145.jp2
b0d4fba389d228b6c07ae39ff0239991
4b53345f235490497ede39cac74c2884e31e0145
F20101201_AACWHM leko_m_Page_178.jp2
f87c8c5e99b1ffd9f8c012fe27489cd4
8a51b393087e3b125a86f6cbfd3e401f11f9d2da
F20101201_AACWIA leko_m_Page_001.tif
951358617dbb5c94cef33f3d19392463
22c55426b7c91d3d0006d25b60b9617ef6c91a26
F20101201_AACWHN leko_m_Page_180.jp2
f3971f8fa4df4c97be8728c00920911a
d221af262bb4ffe54f7e41fb8860906cd786621a
1051957 F20101201_AACWGY leko_m_Page_146.jp2
6d5be25f515ff7f13b555c438e5e4ec7
b7f6157127dc2246cdc2cda94d49486e8107a7d3
F20101201_AACWIB leko_m_Page_002.tif
f54e54d057f553a850a6998d7608002b
2b8d819f6e360d151386598f0812a8e0a85c7821
F20101201_AACWHO leko_m_Page_181.jp2
f1693a27dd4abdb344568e7241eb01f5
9189551e1760fc27356f2dd4bb7021a136ead554
F20101201_AACWGZ leko_m_Page_147.jp2
ed8c1e427fe4b29c4c233a25754c0be5
e2a46fc1450ad668663b87b0a4eb7053aa5b3abd
F20101201_AACWIC leko_m_Page_004.tif
e45b521ba66d8af015fadc6891543891
47888a8e21b07046fb441081b4f7d8e2abe9271e
F20101201_AACWID leko_m_Page_005.tif
1578e686813919bca3e31ddcce2ab880
cb9b41a57e4611452d8067098f01b24ec2141738
872677 F20101201_AACWHP leko_m_Page_182.jp2
6c2e5f659dd7b178dedbbb8273eda3a0
4f135fa71c0fc4a67e626d2627f6cc4a496adb0f
F20101201_AACWIE leko_m_Page_006.tif
7010e19e45efe9e9b1fc853ab0c5810f
219cbd70668dbdb51d3b10d5aef78ceadca46a1d
614291 F20101201_AACWHQ leko_m_Page_187.jp2
6143453d176495658bfbb51b2f8718e0
e032ea1f9c6218a0a7771863ff21f37cf51b94b7
F20101201_AACWIF leko_m_Page_007.tif
544ffb84ab8d88b2ff04ed25f25e1986
2ea58c390272389354afd690dafe2950f39a8b10
537658 F20101201_AACWHR leko_m_Page_192.jp2
2becdc09e00474fcd7b614e73eccf727
8103c8253111a9b97a24b2c3a1a0363d36db49ff
F20101201_AACWIG leko_m_Page_008.tif
d0da07a9b0aa7d8897026a7adce97b8e
7bf0f018c68131c5420614c2509d1798290a1866
547770 F20101201_AACWHS leko_m_Page_193.jp2
2efa43db7ca4ec251c2c6bbd9a6ba74a
12178c909008827fb886145033f7d930fd0957ed
F20101201_AACWIH leko_m_Page_009.tif
63ecb6f302f691f4bfac93cf7b0dd174
e81e79663dd143474fe4a4ceab726e58b1922f9c
555197 F20101201_AACWHT leko_m_Page_195.jp2
51104261c068ca4ae1e0b838df7c92b0
f7601f49b865c89fae0229defdf6e3687cbd7cc1
F20101201_AACWII leko_m_Page_011.tif
bab8f13da126a4ad6af5ea72a3171627
26759e9e2cdc1962954d2b60914fa0536b742068
301806 F20101201_AACWHU leko_m_Page_196.jp2
1ce81d059309bb4e79084399abe66636
48dc3c0d651ad0ae26b3e6c8a65e411a95816ad4
F20101201_AACWIJ leko_m_Page_014.tif
c4927be83e3ef01e333166d79924f422
1ca9f9932ccfc50e9e3441338f4042777e92f3d2
F20101201_AACWHV leko_m_Page_199.jp2
6b1b77012055fb0721b50675b90e41cc
0aebd46d65ff39db45023c069b2784bcbb79dcac
F20101201_AACWIK leko_m_Page_016.tif
ddbda9e16ec5ca0226a5df69a2ed4161
57c565fcab84d00a7791054db9c1d698e814a266
F20101201_AACWHW leko_m_Page_200.jp2
33e1dc18b4c5d3bed473ff54a15dfca4
c184e4af89505d282c8660af21f2e2df05152017
F20101201_AACWIL leko_m_Page_019.tif
5292ed56f50545af743c77d9d87c90f1
e0298e901c6d2b88a450b79319c603cb93f9c808
F20101201_AACWHX leko_m_Page_201.jp2
ad1911ea4edb132c530a52fba8333749
49016e12520daf2951ad27bfb1563210cc2965fc
F20101201_AACWJA leko_m_Page_052.tif
740a78030448d4d9212d4614c7b1a656
c8d847d4857b63f6fbae468f6e47a8a53536afa4
F20101201_AACWIM leko_m_Page_022.tif
dc10794e2d6ec29bf4557740b63c7958
058d9f9eeef668d5097abc392823f1853ab33e66
F20101201_AACWHY leko_m_Page_203.jp2
3bb683931325c9330aa659dd18e7cb39
8f478958986e22671b3922a2a7d146bfa41be4f7
F20101201_AACWJB leko_m_Page_056.tif
9ef5c1734d3b79309a16c79a346a86a5
eb61ca7ee9f10b7dcf5411b2271591f2b8f33cea
F20101201_AACWIN leko_m_Page_026.tif
c5664bb7bae0d324878478326a3447c5
aa4c6537af94493a2d2f73e139bc9c9f39f89c8f
F20101201_AACWJC leko_m_Page_059.tif
b7c6062c61c4f86403c3073cddbf4480
6028fc51fa6d3a01bc5f80e7458d77840ce92a93
F20101201_AACWIO leko_m_Page_027.tif
06294ffd7fa73da6e10c656a30bce125
c02d0fbd252ae2b5c6c133e16dac7e19fafd24d6
F20101201_AACWHZ leko_m_Page_207.jp2
119d3c4b002361bcc7b880a77508f9dd
7c80f7c53af42c125ac8d252c1b8f18b94b1d76f
F20101201_AACWJD leko_m_Page_060.tif
9b5e80b3073ec31e4fd37fc00a4e2008
fadc27e746eadd755c3bf36fff79c6be52106eb6
F20101201_AACWIP leko_m_Page_028.tif
654d402c66d6d5321db2095f8bd35d22
cfbc8f1592d0af2e4a1e8e099d81812e4459ed13
F20101201_AACWJE leko_m_Page_061.tif
bc73db3136ef78b3d0dfedec87c41605
10cde856e41205d64bb04c106035a526cd6dca03
F20101201_AACWIQ leko_m_Page_032.tif
5e9b182c4e9edf78367d5b609eca6da8
0bbe6eb114d446d910884dc03b9968c639c79190
F20101201_AACWJF leko_m_Page_064.tif
32eda5985812b77fecd199de5609b39a
dc5ffa49bbb1bb796678cdf0ab4ef3f4a49bb956
F20101201_AACWIR leko_m_Page_034.tif
f84c0deec87967bb4fbbe61b1df0112c
908bb683788645cdcb3632b745a384350bc42705
F20101201_AACWJG leko_m_Page_067.tif
01f37932c8698167197e317c1e3d6aac
ade7519c1fdaa81424251ce2c849cb66dec65120
F20101201_AACWIS leko_m_Page_042.tif
ad180537e4ffdedd21b81fcd51d52581
99a83714d4a98d9d4640b0095b44ec4169857a20
F20101201_AACWJH leko_m_Page_068.tif
994691f04dccb007a83d5e3582d65fb7
a60f499c7f91681fcddb31c7dff14edd427dfa64
F20101201_AACWIT leko_m_Page_043.tif
e036754a37b2a355a3aefa40c5df16e1
b056319d0bce48509510bfb29a9c14cabea0aae0
F20101201_AACWJI leko_m_Page_069.tif
0fbadbbf5825da9809f223de4a28c8a7
ec867c5ae6bbc718fda75640a925ff1b063262ef
F20101201_AACWIU leko_m_Page_044.tif
1974b425b28ae02c8cffdf8b5e5cf9fb
3a45763145e2df7a230d324f9e3bbea61698a893
F20101201_AACWJJ leko_m_Page_071.tif
d8bfb3542cb5bda8f02dc7fd07b025f5
0a34a8554ec463d1a544f93984128d268f0901f8
F20101201_AACWIV leko_m_Page_045.tif
dbd350026e098e0d7f7dcbdf7b00b729
a52a6df11c0304adbc054c7f755559381a8f14c4
F20101201_AACWJK leko_m_Page_072.tif
593404ee2128487550cb2f449d3199f3
436027b17d9a0003de91193ff03a3fe83599e4d5
F20101201_AACWIW leko_m_Page_046.tif
67c5d7de3aeb5b4a23982de11c3009ae
68a0f7be86be2b3e675d89df72caedaa55f9719e
F20101201_AACWJL leko_m_Page_073.tif
8c98e432e3ccdb74e94f5676649722a2
f03a079743b588ba88b0bc6fd12326873d3ba4aa
F20101201_AACWIX leko_m_Page_047.tif
ac2bbede2d0ccdf500d758d2abb33cbd
a542f3f619094a53fc02ea34a4d3f63b979fcf71
F20101201_AACWJM leko_m_Page_076.tif
2305c861c8b5dd465782405d7f747208
529f7fc853840c41c030832bcb7fe2424f186163
F20101201_AACWIY leko_m_Page_048.tif
1f3f0d14b276a7ebbb1a168a746f52dc
cb60019398695cc9367cc24a470eee070ac9523a
F20101201_AACWKA leko_m_Page_104.tif
fa3866d7911864483bb9e98c4fc27f23
fbce140369883a50dc75a54e3d7ca71e42bc68aa
F20101201_AACWJN leko_m_Page_083.tif
0fe439bf581c8cd96b51c6559258fbfb
2db0523b5b386eb4cdd17b20fc664b42d260429a
F20101201_AACWIZ leko_m_Page_049.tif
0446b03e04001acf1cc52ee38c97f375
b1af9aee1fa0373b6713f6020a3f67b99cc8250c
F20101201_AACWKB leko_m_Page_106.tif
795152575488bf1a536804fcd6e80652
0bcd045b6ce73b236beec512ca06521e4bf232d5
F20101201_AACWJO leko_m_Page_084.tif
59b2d4a2ef64f139f75179fae7a67f97
b0ee5af55f10fd410c7332b10ad5ba335da0ea35
F20101201_AACVHA leko_m_Page_035thm.jpg
511e9786923151e1283304591bd5f721
8987f6d1bf9a86acab01e38c076047abea0c52ef
F20101201_AACWKC leko_m_Page_107.tif
452b5dffcfc54649a414dbfef39b7cd0
e77912050cfd9899b7299f85ccc3484674e266e4
F20101201_AACWJP leko_m_Page_085.tif
079066576a5f7e625cd9cbab6d44b241
53fcd40a138f85066ea6ce28f6e0c97d3908f088
85767 F20101201_AACVHB leko_m_Page_036.jpg
1279cde492c876e3163e2101806f4323
998fe3fbc9cc749d93febfb495605f664597b359
F20101201_AACWKD leko_m_Page_108.tif
b51c3f635ac5bc334e4576f4975713cd
9442454ffaee16e596884b7e337979ca8a18bd7a
F20101201_AACWJQ leko_m_Page_089.tif
be8f250cdf6429a94d1cc09b9d9c3f8a
d9bc53b0cd7a04721feb755219f2e08c210c45d9
28676 F20101201_AACVHC leko_m_Page_126.QC.jpg
292d06145dbdd3a167c10a0af2d0aa5f
90bb1d7a4d42d62a267a0b0a6913164653d95e20
F20101201_AACWKE leko_m_Page_109.tif
b785fc3eabe651a660037187954984f0
ed2e28bfe758bbd023cf8627ef6995fbd7bbc7e7
F20101201_AACWJR leko_m_Page_090.tif
f72d4131f4740eca2580ab6c39b98736
2763a3bff1a763c43329d718e9953eee9d00a37e
28077 F20101201_AACVHD leko_m_Page_204.QC.jpg
d0efde409082c0461dc0dcc7b5fc6d07
362d4dbecdaaf30603f8333553eeaa02abd0f78d
F20101201_AACWKF leko_m_Page_111.tif
95be71dd23f2e7b795ddb90af9f28f8a
ab64f4a3a6eabd64582b9bdb5ea2338a0742b6fa
F20101201_AACWJS leko_m_Page_092.tif
19a76d556b5b4bbd525c2dacb65097c2
169f3f20494c23241dd647ffcbf9ee07174bde1e
F20101201_AACVHE leko_m_Page_170.tif
2089bde3951a11e600c8348a987bf85a
b1cc76f4406e5806cbea43eeb00e1b229f56b2d6
F20101201_AACWKG leko_m_Page_112.tif
a8cb82eed94ae6b6e9c1e117c51ad5c1
e1606e7028ef0d3cbae4ce09ae4a528f2dc98164
82618 F20101201_AACVGR leko_m_Page_055.jpg
1aa2fef3e49f4cc7c9e1bcc17a3df550
a63b7211c516ab398a8336afe170b9654c0ed9b1
F20101201_AACWJT leko_m_Page_093.tif
ec2d1ac74c34e65880e778030fa39d08
8f67063cf4164272531a3e7b1d6ba59a1a641f68
1684 F20101201_AACVHF leko_m_Page_132thm.jpg
fdcbadd2c7c6077ab7b0c7a80e9d6192
04bb152431974ccd64ec2af6c6a395fe903899cd
F20101201_AACWKH leko_m_Page_113.tif
3afa3a6b9248fb00941c88bf2ae6430e
077db84e0360493ff2252e4f7e180d1b7af6638a
762856 F20101201_AACVGS leko_m_Page_184.jp2
d872b924a00797c2b5b3afedf6bb603b
6484b6a9a9b52685e95426563d66befb60aa47fe
F20101201_AACWJU leko_m_Page_094.tif
5bdb60a64d929372d6cfe219f1582269
448d31201609306852d6f0ba0b834814c30373c6
6739 F20101201_AACVHG leko_m_Page_143thm.jpg
7472b1181fd8c3029f91cd3e4836a8e8
acef56562eba02a5f68f5f1bfb13f450d79b62df
F20101201_AACWKI leko_m_Page_114.tif
a7d5c6af4e1bec67bc47b7991254dd28
142746dfd5f4ece404dd062ad697160d81102977
6172 F20101201_AACVGT leko_m_Page_149thm.jpg
fcdce795c7a947c34dd8d03889bfae07
7b70132d2047804a5e6768f72ef682fe2c8705fa
F20101201_AACWJV leko_m_Page_098.tif
85269bbd1c960cf4d226355c4222c3e6
7d5446f50b9cb5019bb98cf66fd2f6ed4e1f8bc9
F20101201_AACVHH leko_m_Page_092.jp2
714c4396f30d79d59c370b577f6f55e5
b7768803c8d9b2bf11fbed487914852b0ccb3806
F20101201_AACWKJ leko_m_Page_116.tif
8634e6f3660dcfb11be5586666b7c7a1
5d39e22edc96bc8085ccbfc805d5b9fb7de9b0d7
91751 F20101201_AACVGU leko_m_Page_033.jpg
e7293ecbfa613a3aa5f48d516ff9ee6e
15f859796714130a20000a3f8328d547835ad4fc
F20101201_AACWJW leko_m_Page_099.tif
aa039742c790c46e00a3fefc2c4f266f
55d40a752ff53752bff67f015e1e2418c37bdf98
18107 F20101201_AACVHI leko_m_Page_008.QC.jpg
8e79d37dbe61cea95470ee9031f7138d
2f77e1c54b282d3054e92aaa6d0d83d1d150780d
F20101201_AACWKK leko_m_Page_117.tif
02383d032e80e03f121d4a0222e204de
16f4a7b5d34d0176d1894b0b4ba37fb76f09092c
27462 F20101201_AACVGV leko_m_Page_199.QC.jpg
1603f19b64ca8bcb445997707b397151
d2c7326787bde2ec2052580c911d7d6fd057c89e
F20101201_AACWJX leko_m_Page_100.tif
eb416959c5dbe8dd47526fb5d56c18dc
f9eb34b521e361b6e0b93e98ba45d2c9ab73d63b
F20101201_AACVHJ leko_m_Page_030.tif
283e302219206eeb5aa05d63ff489977
150e6779d199b8dd63dc55e5ab94797201c69581
F20101201_AACWKL leko_m_Page_118.tif
1d0bca5d1b834a58e4fca28d73a07b02
136c34b0e159f007f72f13a587e48cd7a4ebe750
F20101201_AACWLA leko_m_Page_144.tif
110d10e32fea525386d0c7bf7aa8df59
82c7a4df026605c90a1fd9b4d4fcce3f68b9b6c6
24564 F20101201_AACVGW leko_m_Page_062.QC.jpg
318c5790924aa33e66c98be021dbcebb
d54615df2bfe83f30f517b0d22d86ed29d64bb94
F20101201_AACWJY leko_m_Page_101.tif
848dc45166846c8a7fe39de353a6a124
9305b93a4147d72376ff61e249f551cb21db741b
28785 F20101201_AACVHK leko_m_Page_159.jpg
c32a0c5c200bef4dd45ecb775bd51764
e155b3b58256554409bebc36a68c2e2d6a60d8e1
F20101201_AACWKM leko_m_Page_119.tif
906393689e651c7188a2deeb8362738c
3506e6dbb4c3ab13787b9e4355dc9ccbd35b35d9
F20101201_AACWLB leko_m_Page_146.tif
6a22675d2e47e334e3b41a182064abcf
0927a71caba31d66d592733e5cb7539e32cb8653
42400 F20101201_AACVGX leko_m_Page_195.jpg
ac2d7515e4bc2fb7b9ea81978609028b
c109591cb443f13e493e192444f1ca1c606bae10
F20101201_AACWJZ leko_m_Page_103.tif
d18ed45d5955ee2bf33d3d44e64a37fb
1664d2b35c5f5fd33afbc1cfc6e0a050dcc490a2
30261 F20101201_AACVHL leko_m_Page_179.jpg
c2f4e49c50d1ad214a6c8dc94ef5dd9e
6b3e14e2d2d9a4336c47914213ab457c4768abd4
F20101201_AACWKN leko_m_Page_121.tif
a3b717eca942749a930e44c37ea82a45
84388c08b9b682e91974f59cc24eb9f11d21ddad
F20101201_AACWLC leko_m_Page_152.tif
f05fe7cbb461959eb1c900acfb0eb855
006343dacde02809c72490250ce5b2e13c6756ae
F20101201_AACVGY leko_m_Page_091.tif
bbee3b9b32de6704c6c082a6ec754739
55c9e29bb4798144e5194d4b9bca4b5e6a6f50ac
5564 F20101201_AACVIA leko_m_Page_026thm.jpg
067115f80a3bf78253380e37d38b44ea
57daa0d33ba34ed34c5549179695e5681c28d5ff
83775 F20101201_AACVHM leko_m_Page_118.jpg
588932bad0e0c4b2339f0c5f7d616635
b5657830f26daaf958858bf7370ec5b83a10dfeb
F20101201_AACWKO leko_m_Page_122.tif
73e20ce188b9a7bc38d6d19770e2a241
c4abebf88805c1849a01f00dfcdfd5c9eb697905
F20101201_AACWLD leko_m_Page_155.tif
f73a642c1df5cc4bc57a233855735728
cc1c009e5435aac614bdf7ba24d2ada55cf2907c
80440 F20101201_AACVIB leko_m_Page_069.jpg
0eef834ff85c040478a1b5451f5e4a49
03527765dcc647332882abcc2cca925b5cca8dc6
25754 F20101201_AACVHN leko_m_Page_127.QC.jpg
9337cd47f0195925893d3da934b7a7aa
01cc35fb33583aecbbc719fec5ce1f5239e97f06
F20101201_AACWKP leko_m_Page_124.tif
555fd36a08bed008bf72651cc31f42f3
6635b15564e8679ba0e28319ca604f4ce972ea49
F20101201_AACWLE leko_m_Page_156.tif
1bd91822be37c02e90924586f4d39ce1
9a426edc357dd9b04f8947bb9c615eb6590adf06
F20101201_AACVGZ leko_m_Page_046.jp2
91d383b9e6a72e8ff153ef0b7ed8b987
506b6c423b9f09ca7ada9bcdafaf92ca0bc352be
26683 F20101201_AACVIC leko_m_Page_019.QC.jpg
5c3cd850d037694de96740d48f01f560
775a6a05307ca1f1b688bb19023288088375e898
21522 F20101201_AACVHO leko_m_Page_083.QC.jpg
d85159f2e3db0c3954dfe53a50c72e27
0d9686c2bd93f23ff33e7162bfb8e44cfe6f1a6c
F20101201_AACWKQ leko_m_Page_126.tif
e1bf73933d98e5abe4eab71d0277b07f
3f356e5c92d3dfe3b7bc321336eca9ad033e40cb
F20101201_AACWLF leko_m_Page_157.tif
9a7c4520308d63b452da74bbe7cfcab3
2b6cbf75a60b163092ebb96fad47dd9eae6fa978
27510 F20101201_AACVID leko_m_Page_111.QC.jpg
f0fe1831bdbdc188abe0687c6bb8e13b
226927f0a7d767605e052ed10b9c1352c7e79192
84026 F20101201_AACVHP leko_m_Page_067.jpg
0da8d22575cf94e2f4022ca7de2abd8b
d9a4ab2b821900504b4f3ade77e52976022b761b
F20101201_AACWKR leko_m_Page_130.tif
536fc518072ecf1acc632d499bf6cce3
243df90afad73787e5f8f8175d0c9ee2b24af383



PAGE 1

1 UNDERSTANDING THE VARIOUS INFLUENCES ON SPECIAL EDUCATION PRESERVICE TEACHERS APPROPRIATION OF CONCEPTUAL AND PRACTICAL TOOLS FOR TEACHING READING By MELINDA MARIE LEKO A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Melinda Marie Leko

PAGE 3

3 To Adam It had to be you, wonderful you.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As m y dissertation pursuit dr aws to a close, I must acknowledge the many people who supported my journey. I was blessed to share this remarkable experi ence with a myriad of family and friends. Without their unwavering love, supp ort, and encouragement, I would not have reached this pinnacle. To them, I owe them a lifetime of love and gratitude. First, I would like to thank my family members. My husband, Adam, cheered for every high point, but more importantly supported and consoled me during ever y low point. Adam was the one I turned to when I felt the challenges we re too great to overcome. I thank him for being so patient and self-sacrificing as I completed my doctorate. I thank God everyday for introducing me to the love of my life. Additionally, I want to thank my parents, Joseph and Judith Co thern. I will never forget all the sacrifices they made so that I could comple te my education. I would also like to thank my sisters, Debbie Zuknick and Me lissa Cameron, who like my parents played a large role in my upbringing. I want to thank Debbie for being a model of strength and courage in the face of obstacles. To Melissa, I owe many thanks for be ing a mentor throughout my dissertation. I also thank Kirk Cameron, my brothe r-in-law, who was a constant source of support. Finally, my nieces and nephews, Joey, Julie, Jon, Amelia, Abigail, and Evie always brought a smile to my face when it was needed most. Finally, my thanks to my family would not be complete without acknowledging my inlaws, David and Janet Leko. I am so apprec iative, because they offered nothing but encouragement and affirmation every step of th e way. I also want to thank my sisters and brothers-in law, Melissa and Kevin Schaeffer and Chris and Ashley Leko, for the unending laughs we shared.

PAGE 5

5 I also owe much appreciation to my comm ittee members who encouraged and guided me. First, Dr. Mary Brownell, my co mmittee chair pushed me to strive for excellence. I am indebted to her for the time she spent giving me feedback on my ideas and writing. Her dedication to the field of special education will inspire me for the rest of my life. I am indebted to her as a mentor, researcher, and friend. To Dr. Anne Bishop, I ow e many thanks for remaining by my side from start to finish. I will always remember her kindness and compassion. I would like to thank Dr. Cynthia Griffin for helping me mature as a re searcher and writer. For all the time she spent mentoring me, I am especially th ankful. Finally, to Dr. David Mill er I owe particular thanks for remaining on my committee even though I comple ted a qualitative disserta tion. I will be forever grateful I had the opportunity to wo rk with him and learn from him. Finally, I owe much gratitude to my friends. I especially want to thank Nicole Wright for being my life long best buddy. I also extend warm thanks to the friends I have made during my doctoral program. Mary Theresa Kiely and Charlotte Mundy I thank for listening to my complaining, worries, and uncertainties. I will always cherish the wonderful times we have shared over margaritas. I also thank my frie nds and colleagues in the COPSSE office: Meg Kamman, Lisa Langley, Laura Ki ng, Brian Trutschel, Jenny Heretick, Susie Long, Juliana De Oliveira, and Jen Cordovez. Working with all of them has been such a joy and privilege. Finally, I would like to thank my friends Drs. Paul Sindelar and Martha League, both of whom helped me during my doctoral program. Dr. Sindelars expertise and leadership has influenced my development as a researcher and grant writer. I thank Dr. League for helping me secure my dissertation participants and for always helping me keep life in perspective. I am exceedingly appreciative to everyone who has been instrument al in helping me earn my doctorate. Surely I must be the most blessed person on earth!

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........9 LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................10 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................11 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM............................................................................... 13 Comparative Studies............................................................................................................ ...14 Statement of the Problem....................................................................................................... .24 Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................... ....25 Definition of Terms................................................................................................................25 Delimitations of the Study..................................................................................................... .26 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................27 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........27 Five Levels of Appropriation.................................................................................................. 28 Characteristics of Individual Learners.................................................................................... 31 Prior Experiences with Schooling................................................................................... 31 Incoming Knowledge and Beliefs about Content............................................................ 33 Personal Attributes..........................................................................................................40 Social Contexts of Pre-service Teacher Learning..................................................................45 Conclusion..............................................................................................................................51 3 RESEARCH DESIGN............................................................................................................54 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........54 Theoretical Background......................................................................................................... .54 Research Design.....................................................................................................................55 Sample Selection....................................................................................................................56 Pre-service Teachers........................................................................................................ 56 PROTEACH Instructors and Field Supervisors.............................................................. 59 Cooperating Teachers...................................................................................................... 59 Participant and Practicum Placement Information................................................................. 60 Pre-service Teachers an d Cooperating Teachers ............................................................. 60 Unified Elementary PROTEACH Program..................................................................... 65 Reading Courses and Instructors..................................................................................... 66 Field Supervisors............................................................................................................. 70 Procedure................................................................................................................................71

PAGE 7

7 Data Collection................................................................................................................71 Data Analysis...................................................................................................................77 Verification......................................................................................................................80 Study Limitations............................................................................................................ 81 Researcher Subjectivity................................................................................................... 81 Presentation of Findings.........................................................................................................83 4 PRE-SERVICE TEACHER ACTIVITY SYSTEMS.............................................................87 Anita.......................................................................................................................................88 Influence of the Individual.............................................................................................. 89 Influence of Social Contexts........................................................................................... 90 Appropriation of Tools....................................................................................................93 Interplay of Influences..................................................................................................... 95 Colleen....................................................................................................................................96 Influence of the Individual.............................................................................................. 96 Influence of Social Contexts........................................................................................... 98 Appropriation of Tools..................................................................................................101 Interplay of Influences................................................................................................... 102 Kristy......................................................................................................................... ...........103 Influence of the Individual............................................................................................ 103 Influence of Social Contexts......................................................................................... 105 Appropriation of Tools..................................................................................................109 Interplay of Influences................................................................................................... 111 Melanie.................................................................................................................................111 Influence of the Individual............................................................................................ 112 Influence of Social Contexts......................................................................................... 113 Appropriation of Tools..................................................................................................116 Interplay of Influences................................................................................................... 118 Nancy....................................................................................................................................118 Influence of the Individual............................................................................................ 119 Influence of Social Contexts......................................................................................... 120 Appropriation of Tools..................................................................................................124 Interplay of Influences................................................................................................... 125 Tricia.....................................................................................................................................125 Influence of the Individual............................................................................................ 125 Influence of Social Contexts......................................................................................... 127 Appropriation of Tools..................................................................................................129 Interplay of Influences................................................................................................... 131 Summary...............................................................................................................................131 5 THE GROUNDED THEORY ON PRE-SERV I CE TEACHER APPROPRIATION OF CONCEPTUAL AND PR ACTICAL TOOLS.....................................................................137 Core Concept: Opportunities to Ap propriate Knowledge in Practice .................................. 140 Component Concept: Personal Qualities.............................................................................. 145

PAGE 8

8 Personal Attributes........................................................................................................146 Personal Concerns and Future Goals.............................................................................147 Beliefs............................................................................................................................149 Component Concept: Motivation for Knowledge Assimilation........................................... 150 Component Concept: Access to Knowledge........................................................................ 152 Summary...............................................................................................................................156 6 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS................................................................................ 160 Discussion.............................................................................................................................160 Opportunities to Appropriate Knowledge in Practice ...................................................161 Personal Qualities.......................................................................................................... 162 Motivation for Knowledge Assimilation....................................................................... 165 Access to Knowledge.................................................................................................... 166 Limitations.................................................................................................................... ........167 Implications................................................................................................................... .......168 Implications for Future Research in Special Education Teacher Preparation ............... 168 Implications for Special Education Teach er P reparation and Current Practice in Schools.......................................................................................................................170 Conclusion............................................................................................................................175 APPENDIX A PRIOR BELIEFS AND EXPERIENCES SURVEY........................................................... 177 B INFORMED CONSENT LETTERS.................................................................................... 178 C INTERVIEW PROTOCOL.................................................................................................. 182 D TABLE OF CODES............................................................................................................. 188 E EXCERPTS FROM REFLECTIVE LOG............................................................................ 197 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................198 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................207

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Pre-service teacher information......................................................................................... 84 3-2 Practicum placements........................................................................................................85 3-3 Data collection timeline................................................................................................... ..86 4-1 Influences on individual pre-serv ice teachers app ropriation of tools............................. 133 5-1 Influences on appropriation of conceptual and practical tools ........................................ 158

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Conceptual framework....................................................................................................... 22 2-1 Levels of appropriation. Adopted from Gross man, Smagorinsky, & Valencia (1999)..... 29 5-1 Pre-service teacher a ppropriation of conceptual and practical tools. .............................. 159

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy UNDERSTANDING THE VARIOUS INFLUENCES ON SPECIAL EDUCATION PRESERVICE TEACHERS APPROPRIATION OF CONCEPTUAL AND PRACTICAL TOOLS FOR TEACHING READING By Melinda Marie Leko August 2008 Chair: Mary Brownell Major: Special Education Working under an activity theory framework, th e purpose of this study was to investigate how learning experiences in sp ecial education teacher prepara tion programs related to teacher candidates in the context of reading instruction for strugg ling readers and students with disabilities. More specifically, this study examined the interactions among special education preservice teachers, their university preparation in reading, and th eir practicum e xperiences, with the ultimate goal to understand how these interactions influen ced the pre-service teachers appropriation of conceptual and practical tools. Investigating how pre-service teachers interact with their various preparatory experiences is important to understanding the extent to which teacher education makes a differe nce for prospective teachers. To understand the influences on special edu cation pre-service teach er appropriation of conceptual and practical tools grounded theory methods were used. Six special education preservice teachers, who taught read ing to struggling readers and st udents with disabilities during a practicum experience, participated in the st udy. In addition to pre-se rvice teachers, their practicum cooperating teachers, field supervisors, and reading methods course instructors also participated. The data sources consisted of participant interviews, videotaped classroom

PAGE 12

12 observations, the Reading in Special Education (RISE) observation in strument, pre and post concept maps, and prior experi ences and beliefs surveys. Grounded within the data on pre-service teacher appropriation of conceptual and practical tools, a theory emerged from three analysis phas es (i.e., open, axial, and selective coding). In summary, six pre-service teachers were all aff ected by influences comprising individual and social context activity systems, though the exte nt to which these activity systems affected individual pre-service teachers varied. From the activity systems, four concepts emerged as chief mediators of pre-service teacher appropriation of tools. Of th ese concepts, the most important was opportunities to appropriate knowledge in practice Without such opportunities, preservice teachers struggled to appropriate tools to higher le vels. While opportunities to appr opriate knowledge in practice emerged as the core concept, three component concepts (a) personal qualities, (b) motivation for knowledge assimilation, and (c) access to knowledge also played a role in the appropriation of conceptual and practical tools. The interactions of the core co ncept and the component concepts worked to either facilitate or hinder tool appropriation. In the best case, the concepts worked in positive ways, thus facilitating pre-service teachers appropriation of tools. In this instance the interaction of supportive personal attributes, a future goal as a special educator, and a positive special education practicum experi ence with plentiful oppor tunities to situate explicit, systematic reading knowledge in practice led to high levels of tool appropriation.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM In 1983, the National Commission on Ex cellence in Education published A Nation at Risk a report that condem ned the American education sy stem for not preparing students to compete in an increasingly competitive global society. In the years following the publication of A Nation at Risk, critics of teacher education argued that the proposed failure of American schools was due to teacher education programs having no measur able impact on the production of high quality teachers, or on student achievement (Hess, 2001; Walsh, 2001). Critics further argued that a teachers verbal ability and s ubject matter knowledge were key factors in improving students achievement (Hess, 2001; Walsh, 2001). Hess and Walsh represent scholars who supported the deregulation of the teaching profession whereby pr ospective teachers would be able to enter the classroom without completing any education coursework. Supporters of deregulation believe that traditional teacher preparation programs are too lengthy because of unnecessary requirements such as courses in pedagogy and student teach ing experiences; these re strictive preparation programs discourage capable and talented people from enteri ng the classroom. Opposing the deregulation position are supporters of teacher education, for example the National Commission on Teaching and Americas Fu ture (NCTAF) and its spokesperson Linda Darling-Hammond. NCTAF (1996) published a report suggesting increasing the professionalization of the nations teachers. For example, NCTAF recommended reinventing teacher preparation and professional development and rewarding teacher knowledge and skill. In essence, the NCTAF report argued for greater te acher preparation and increased standards to enter the classroom. Thus, a longstanding debate has ensued between those who advocate for greater professionalization and re gulation of the teaching profe ssion, and those who advocate for the deregulation of teaching and the abolishmen t of formal teacher education programs. The

PAGE 14

14 debate between deregulationists and those who support teacher pr eparation has centered on the question: Does teacher education make a difference? To answer this question, an increase in comparative studies appeared starting in the early 1990s. Comparative Studies Debates con cerning teacher education and its role in preparing highly qualified teachers have lead to multiple comparative studies. In comparison studies, researchers compare the practices of teachers from various preparation programs (typically tradit ional vs. alternative route) in hopes of determining which pr ograms produce more effective teachers (Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, Wyckoff, 2006; Ke nnedy, 1991a; Harris & Sass, 2007; Laczko-Kerr & Berliner, 2002; Nougaret, Scr uggs, & Mastropieri, 2005; Sinde lar, Daunic, & Rennells, 2004; Wenglinsky, 2000). While the design of these st udies seems straightforward (i.e. compare teachers with more preparation and teachers w ith less preparation) a plethora of hidden complexities makes drawing conclusive inferenc es virtually impossible. For example, the programs that are compared in these studies are quite heterogeneous. Spec ific programs within the categories of traditional and alternative route can vary dramatically, thus making it difficult to draw valid comparisons. For example, Laczko-Kerr & Berliner compared Teach for America (TFA) graduates and graduates from traditional teacher education programs in Arizona and found that graduates from traditional programs were able to secure stronger student achievement scores. The implication from this study is that t eachers from traditional preparation programs are of higher quality than teachers from alternative route programs. But as Zeichner and Conklin (2005) point out, this seemingly straightforward conclusion shrouds a more complicated picture. The teachers comprising the traditional prepara tion group attended several different universitybased programs, all of which differed in their ch aracteristics and structure. Similarly, the TFA graduates differed in the amount of mentori ng, additional training, and other supports they

PAGE 15

15 received. The variation in training and preparation the teachers in th is study received prevents us from knowing which program features ma de a difference in teacher quality. In a similarly designed study, Nougaret et al. (2 005) studied special education teachers and their classroom practices. They found that gradua tes of traditional teach er education programs, on a validated classroom observation instrument outperformed alternative route teachers who had participated in six hours or less of teacher education coursework. While the results of this study indicated that special educators with more extensive preparation outperformed teachers with less extensive preparation, like the LaczkoKerr & Berliner (2002) study, the Nougaret et al. study did not account for some important differen ces between and within the two groups of teachers. The sample of 40 teachers was drawn fr om five different Mid-Atlantic States. The university based traditional prep aration programs were not unifor m across states, nor were the nontraditional programs. The programs differed in number and types of required courses. Moreover, the teachers from the nontraditional programs all entered teaching with various Bachelors degrees, thus they had different backgrounds. The impor tant differences between and within program types, made it difficult to underst and what specific aspects of teacher preparation made a difference in the teachers practices. The abovementioned complexities that accompany comparative studies have led some scholars to argue that such comparative studies are not terribly productive in studying the effects of teacher preparation (Boyd et al., 2006; Humphrey & Wechsler, 2005; Kennedy, 1991; Wenglinsky, 2000). These teacher educators believe that more informative investigations are those that examine the interac tions among preparation, school cont ext, and attributes unique to prospective teachers.

PAGE 16

16 For instance, Kennedy and her colleagues at th e National Center for Research on Teacher Learning (1991) conducted the Te acher Education and Learning to Teach (TELT) study. The TELT study consisted of longitudinal case studies of 11 preparation sites representing various preparation approaches across the stages in a teachers career (for ex ample, traditional and alternative pre-service, induction and in-service). Kennedy f ound that not only did the preservice programs differ dramatical ly in terms of their focus, structure, and requirements, but they also differed in the types of pre-service teacher s they attracted. Prospective teachers beliefs about teaching and their teaching am bitions played a role in their choice of academic institution. As the TELT researchers argued, the outcome of any preparation program, therefore, is a function of both program features and individual teacher candidates. In 2000, Wenglinsky studied the relationships between institution characteristics, their programs, and teacher effectiveness as measured by teacher licensure examination scores. The results indicated that (a) private institutions outscored public institutions (b) universities outperformed colleges, (c) programs with large numb ers of traditional students did better than programs with fewer numbers of such students, and (d) institutions wi th diverse faculties performed better than programs with predomin antly white faculty members. Chief among Wenglinksys implications was that teacher prep aration programs could not be uniformly labeled effective or ineffective. The effectiveness of a particular program was dependent on its various characteristics. Five years later, Humphrey and Wechsler ( 2005) studied prospective teachers from seven alternative certificati on programs and found that teacher deve lopment was not dependent solely on participation in a specific program; rather teacher deve lopment was a function of the interaction of preparation program school context, and the candida tes prior experiences. Like

PAGE 17

17 Kennedy (1991), Humphrey and Wechsler found that program outcomes were a function of program characteristics and design and the program participants. Finally, the Pathways to Teaching study conducted by Boyd et al. (2006) supports the idea that there is more variability in teacher effec tiveness within preparation programs than there is between preparation programs. Boyd and his collea gues studied graduates of various pathways to teaching in New York City. They found that though graduates of traditional preparation programs secured higher student achievement scor es in the first few years of teaching, these differences were often small and di ssipated after five years. Differe nces in effectiveness were far greater within pathways than between them. The studies by Kennedy (1991), Wenglinsky (200 0), Humphrey and W echsler (2005), and Boyd and his colleagues (2006) demonstrate th at though comparative studies can inform researchers of some general differe nces in various preparatory rout es to the classroom, they fail to provide an in-depth look at the relationships between participants and programs. According to Kennedy, without such an in-depth examina tion, findings from comparison studies cannot contribute much to reform efforts in teacher education (Kennedy, 1991a p. 12). Furthermore, Boyd et al. (2006) and Humphrey and Wechsler (2005) asserted th at basic comparisons at the program level are not particularly useful, because participants experience programs so differently. The participants ba ckgrounds, school contexts, and program features all interacted so that despite being in the same program, each participant had a unique experience. According to Humphrey and Wechsler, a more beneficial design would be in-depth case studies at the participant level. The American Educational Research Associat ion (AERA) panel on research and teacher education supports the need for more in-depth types of studies of preparation programs and

PAGE 18

18 teacher learning. Representing the position of th e AERA, Zeichner and Conklin (2005) posit that the complexities of teacher education progr ams need to be acknowledged by studying the program components, their settings, and their partic ipants. Particularly usef ul are studies that: (a) are situated in relevant theoretical frameworks (b) connect teacher characteristics, teacher learning, teacher practices, and teacher education, in sp ecific disciplines, (c) examine teacher education students and the instru ctional contexts of teacher e ducation, and (d) examine teacher education curriculum, instructi onal practices, and organizationa l arrangements (Zeichner, 2005). Amassing a deeper, more comprehensive body of knowledge on how teachers learn should better inform our policy decisions about how to craft teacher education. The position taken by the AERA consensus pa nel is supported in the research on teacher learning. The research on teacher learning calls for a sophisticated model that can account for teachers prior experiences, beliefs, knowledge, and practice (Borko & Putnam, 1996; FeimanNemser, 1983; Humphrey & Wechsler, 2005). In conceptualizing teacher lear ning it is important to understand how individuals interact with teach er education experiences, for example how they interpret field experiences and methods courses and how they grow professionally by interacting with other professionals (Feiman-Nemser, 1983). Such a complex conceptualization of teacher learning will help teacher educators capture a mo re accurate picture of how prospective teachers learn. This view of teacher learning particular ly is relevant for special education teacher education, as the intricacies i nvolved in teaching students with disabilities create a more complicated context for teacher learning. For ex ample, special educati on pre-service teachers must be (a) prepared to address the diverse need s of students with disabilities, (b) work in a variety of classroom contexts a nd service delivery models, and (c ) work collaboratively with a variety of stakeholders including administrato rs, general educators, paraprofessionals, and

PAGE 19

19 parents. Furthermore, by studying teacher educat ion programs carefully, we can provide answers to many questions about the degree to which t eacher education programs can make a difference in the preparation of prospective teachers and the ways in which programs can do so. Conceptual Framework: Activity Theory A framework for research on teacher learning that holds much promise for studying the interactions among pre-service teacher experience s, knowledge, and practice is activity theory. Activity theory focuses on the interaction of human activity and consciousness within its relevant environmental context (Jonasse n & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999 p. 62). Activity theory started as a Soviet concept w ith strong ties to Vygotsky and hi s theory of mediation until a rebirth in interest occurred in the 1970s (Dan iels, 2001; Graue, 1993). Activity theory has been applied to the field of tec hnology, especially human-computer interactions (Nardi, 1996). Additionally, in the 1980s several studies in the field of e ducation analyzed cultural resources and constraints available in a se tting that influence activity (Gra ue, 1993). For example, Weisner, Gallimore, and Jordan (1988) investigated sibling care arrangements and how they apply to school interactions. More recently, scholars have argued that activity theory is an appropriate framework for examining teacher learning because according to activity theorists, context affects learning and a persons actions a ffect the context (Fairbanks & Meritt, 1998). Thus, activity theory accounts for individual influences on learning such as prior beliefs, knowledge, and experiences, as well as the various contexts in which teacher learning is situated, for example, contexts like methods courses and internships. Activity theory also rejects the one-way transmission of knowledge model and instead va lues how the learners actions influence the learning context and vice versa.

PAGE 20

20 In 1999, Grossman, Smagorinsky, and Valencia adap ted the tenets of activity theory to the field of education. The activity theory framewor k developed by Grossman et al. served as a foundation for the conceptual framework guiding this investigation of teacher learning and tool appropriation. It should be noted that the model relating teacher learning and activity theory can be applied to both in-service a nd pre-service teachers, but each population has its own set of opportunities, challenges, and contexts. Studying both in-service and pre-service teachers is beyond the scope of this paper, t hus this investigation focused ex clusively on pre-service teacher learning. The conceptual framework that guided th is work is presented in the next section. Using the elements of activity theory as indicat ed by Grossman et al. (1999), the researcher developed a conceptual framework to guide th e study (see Figure 1-1). Pre-service teachers, typified by their individual char acteristics, enter the social c ontexts of pre-service teacher learning. In other words, pre-service teachers, armed with their prior experiences and beliefs, knowledge, personal attributes, and personal goals and expectations enter the teacher preparation program. As indicated by Fairbanks and Meritt (1998), the individuals ac tions affect the preservice teacher preparation cont ext, which in turn affects learning. Thus, according to activity theory, it is the interaction of th e individual with the teacher prep aration context that translates into learning. In this study, th e teacher education programs activ ity systems consist of university coursework, field placements, and practicum expe rience. These activity systems overlap because they exist as connected relationships rather than discrete experiences (Grossman et al.). Each activity system has a specific set of objectiv es, resources, and structural features. From each of these activity systems, pre-se rvice teachers acquire pedagogical tools, categorized as either conceptual or practical. Teachers use pedagogical tools to guide and implement their classroom practice (Grossman et al., p. 13). Concep tual tools are broad

PAGE 21

21 principles and ideas that help guide teachers decision making. Examples of conceptual tools include learning theories such as reader-response theory or sca ffolding. Practical tools, on the other hand, are specific skills and st rategies with immediate utility such as journal writing, use of textbooks, or daily oral language.

PAGE 22

22 Figure 1-1. Conceptual framework

PAGE 23

23 The pre-service teachers then appropriate, or a dopt, certain practical and conceptual tools. The extent to which they adopt a pedagogical tool (either practical or conceptual) depends on the level of agreement and congruence between the influences of the individual, the teacher educators, and the context (Grossman et al., 1999). Additionally, appropriation of tools is dependent on learners acquisition of the conten t knowledge, or subject ma tter, needed to support various tools. For example, a teacher who lacked content knowledge of letter sounds would have difficulty implementing practical tools like blending or segmenting phonemes effectively. Grossman et al. identified five levels of appropriation. The lowest level is lack of appropriation whereby a pre-serv ice teacher does not adopt a tool The lack of appropriation may result because the pre-service teacher lacks su fficient knowledge of the tool, because the preservice teachers beli efs do not support the tool, or because a context is not conducive to utilizing the tool. The second level is appropriating a label. In this level, the pre-se rvice teacher learns the name of a tool but does not know any of the tools features (Grossman et al.). The third level is appropriating surface features in which the pre-service teacher knows some of the tools features but does not know how those features work togeth er or fit with content knowledge to create a holistic picture of the tool (Grossman et al.). The fourth level is appropriating conceptual underpinnings. In this level, the pre-service teacher understands the th eory behind the tool (Grossman et al.). The final level is achieving mastery in which the pre-service teacher possesses the skills to use a tool effec tively (Grossman et al.). To reach mastery may require years of practice. Pre-service teachers engaging in a practicum teaching experience will probably not have enough time to reach mastery levels. Depending on characteristics of the individu al pre-service teacher and her learning contexts, pedagogical tools will be appropriated at different levels. Tools that have been

PAGE 24

24 appropriated at higher levels become the accessibl e practices a pre-service teacher can draw from during her teaching (Grossman et al.). Another way to think about the formation of accessible practices is that the appropriated tools come together to form a pr e-service teachers tool kit of instructional practices. The pre-service teacher s practice is based on the number of available tools and the level to which each one has been appropriated. For example a pre-service teacher will use a practical tool such as morning meeting if she believes in it, if she has sufficient knowledge to support it, and if she is placed in a context that is conducive to implementing it. Statement of the Problem Using activity theo ry as a framework, it is evident that there are many factors that influence teacher learning as it relates to the kno wledge and experiences necessary for teachers to enact practice. Special educat ors face additional challenges and complexities when instructing students with disabilities. For example, special educators must apply th eir broad-based teacher training to a multitude of student needs, academic content areas, and instructional levels as well as assuming multiple roles within their schools (Blanton et al., 2003), thus it might be difficult for them to apply tools, as they must weave toge ther their knowledge of the students, curriculum, and specific interventions with their general e ducation colleagues. Furthermore, limited numbers of special education field placements and internsh ips may result in special education pre-service teachers not having quality contexts in which to enact their knowledge of teaching students with disabilities. Because of the differences between general educators and special educators, researchers in the field of special education need to conduct studies that include the complexities known to characterize special education. It is criti cal, therefore, that sp ecial education teacher education researchers devote time and energy to investigations aimed at unraveling the complex connections between special edu cation pre-service teacher preparation, knowledge, and practice (Zumwalt & Craig, 2005). In pursu ing these types of inquiries, researchers can add to the

PAGE 25

25 growing body of empirical research in special education teacher educa tion that is becoming increasingly important for crafting sound educational polic ies that apply direc tly to students with disabilities. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study, therefore, will be to investigate how learning experiences in special education teacher preparation programs re late to teacher candidates in the context of reading instruction. It is important to note that the tenets of activity theory, as they have been adapted to pre-service teacher learning, could be applied to a ny content area. Because of the NCLB Acts specific emphasis on improving the r eading achievement of students, the present investigation is limited to the area of reading instruction. This study examines the interactions among sp ecial education pre-service teachers, their reading preparation, and their enac tment of reading instruction. Us ing tenets of activity theory, this study will investigate the following questions: (a ) what role do individual characteristics of learners, namely their incoming prior belief s, experiences, knowle dge, expectations, and concerns play in the appropriation of conceptual and practical tools, (b) what are the influences on special education pre-service teachers appr opriation of tools during classroom reading instruction and (c) how do activity settings and their social structures mediate special education pre-service teachers acquisition of knowledge related to reading instruction? According to the guidelines suggested by Zeichner (2005), investigative questions such as these are valuable because they examine teacher education students and teacher education contexts and curricula, all situated in the relevant theoretical framework of activity theory and in the specific content area of reading. Definition of Terms KNOWLEDGE. Knowledge in this study refers to c ontent knowledge that supports

PAGE 26

26 conceptual and practical t ools for reading instruction for students with mild disabilities, specifically l earning disabilities (LD). APPROPRIATION. Appropriation refers to the process through which a person adopts the pedagogical tools available for us e in particular so cial environments and through this process internalizes ways of thinking endemic to specific cultural practices (Grossman et al., 1999, 15). PEDAGOGICAL TOOLS. Pedagogical tools refer to the tools through which teachers construct and carry out teaching practices (Grossman et al., 1999, 13). There are two types of pedagogical tools: conceptual and practical. CONCEPTUAL TOOLS. Conceptual tools refer to prin ciples, ideas, and frameworks about teaching that guide teachers decisions, such as theoretical principles like constructivism, student motivation, and inst ructional scaffolding (Grossman et al., 1999). PRACTICAL TOOLS. Practical tools refer to practices and strategies that serve as direct and immediate resources for t eachers (Grossman et al., 1999). Textbooks, unit plans, behavior charts, and journa l writing prompts are all examples of practical tools. Delimitations of the Study The present study participants were special education Masters leve l students at a large Research Intensive University. Thus, participant pre-service teachers do no t represent the general population of special education pre-service teac hers, nor do the reading course instructors represent the general population of teacher educators. Additionally, the schools in which the preservice teachers completed their practicum place ments were limited to a midsize school district in North Central Florida. Finally, the participan ts were chosen based on selection criteria and their willingness to participate. With a limited sample size, it was inevitable that some preservice teachers would be excluded from the study.

PAGE 27

27 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction To be successful equipping prospective teacher s with the beliefs, knowledge, and practices that will ultim ately raise student achievement, it seems that preparation programs will have to be able to account for and accommodate the need s of individual pre-service teachers. By accommodating pre-service teachers individual need s, the hope is that preparation programs and the activity systems that comprise these progr ams will help prospect ive teachers reach the highest levels of appropriation of tools. An important question for t eacher educators, therefore, is what would either facilitate or stand in the way of higher leve ls of tool appr opriation? What personal attributes of pre-service teachers would facilita te the appropriation of tools? What prior beliefs and understandings about teaching and st udents either support or hinder more advanced tool appropriation? Finally, what types of activities and experiences within the larger preparation activity system further the appropriation of conceptual and practical tools? The purpose of this literature review is to accumulate evidence that will shed light on the aforementioned questions. According to Grossman et al. (1999), to understand how and why preservice teachers appropriat e tools at different levels it is critical to examine two broad concepts, the individual characteri stics of the learner and the social context of learning Within each of these broad concepts are factors that can either hinder or fac ilitate tool appropriation. This chapter reviews the literature in these two areas by highlighti ng research that answers the following questions: (a) what characteristics of individual learners facilitate knowledge acquisition and tool appropriati on and (b) how should the social contexts that mediate preservice teacher learning be structured so as to maximi ze the acquisition of knowledge and appropriation of tools? Before answering these questions, howe ver, this chapter provides a brief

PAGE 28

28 review of Grossman et al.s five levels of a ppropriation. Next, the resear ch on characteristics of individuals will be reviewed. The third section focuses on social contexts of pre-service teacher learning. Following the reviews of these areas, this chapter concludes with a comprehensive summary that links the existing literature with the research questions this study addresses. Although the research goal of the present study is to examine the literature on pre-service special education teacher education in the conten t area of reading, few such studies exist. The majority of pre-service special education teach er education studies examine (a) pre-service teachers beliefs and attitudes about inclusive edu cation and students with disabilities and (b) the effects of collaborative programs between gene ral and special education (Pugach, 2005). Due to a limited number of investigations situated in the joint areas of special education and reading, this literature review will focus on the research on pre-service teacher preparation in general education and wherever possible, highlight relevant research from the fields of special education and reading. Five Levels of Appropriation Figure 2-1 d epicts the five levels of appr opriation according to Grossman, Smagorinsky, and Valencia (1999). The extent to which tools are appropriated depends on the congruence of a learners values, prior experien ces, and goals with those of more experiences or powerful members of a culture, such as school-based teacher s or university facult y (Grossman et al., p. 15).

PAGE 29

29 Figure 2-1. Levels of appropria tion. Adopted from Grossman, Sm agorinsky, & Valencia (1999) In circumstances of high congruence between pre-service teachers, practicum cooperating teachers, field supervisors, and university inst ructors, it is assumed appropriation will reach higher levels. The lowest level is lack of appropriation. At this level tools are not adopted (Grossman et al., 1999). There are a variety of explanations for why a pre-service teacher might not appropriate a particular tool. A pre-service teachers personal beliefs, prior experiences, or cultural background could be at odd s with the tool, thus resulti ng in the pre-service teacher rejecting it. For example, a pre-service teache r who subscribes to a teacher-directed teaching style might reject knowledge and tools related to cooperative learning. A different example

PAGE 30

30 would be when pre-service teachers are being taught new knowledge that is too abstract or difficult for them. Grossman et al. (1999) calls the second level appropriating a label. This level occurs when a tool is appropriated onl y at a superficial level. For ex ample, if a pre-service teacher knows that oral reading fluency involves stude nts reading out loud but does not know specific practices to improve oral r eading fluency or why it is important. The next level is appropriating surface features, in which a learner knows some features of a tool but is missing a broader conceptual understanding of how all the features work together to create a complete tool (Grossman et al.). Knowing that direct instru ction includes both guided and independent practice but not knowing how to determine when students are ready to move from guided to independent practice is an example of someone who has reached the level of appropriating surface features The two highest levels of appropriation are appropriating conceptual underpinnings and achieving mastery. Pre-service teachers who have appropr iated the conceptual underpinnings of a tool have acquired a deep work ing knowledge about the tool, thus allowing them to use the tool in a variety of situations. For example, pre-service teachers who have a deep understanding of curricula and can draw from the strengths of each in various teac hing situations have appropriated conceptual underpin nings. Grossman et al. (199 9) cautioned that pre-service teachers can achieve this level but still be unabl e to translate the knowledge into practice. For example a pre-service teacher might accept new tools and knowledge only to be discouraged from using them during the practicum experience A pre-service teacher might learn about the importance of providing students with disabi lities accommodations in the general education classroom but then be given a practicum placemen t in which students with disabilities are not included in the general education classroom. In this instance, the pre-service teacher has a deep

PAGE 31

31 understanding of accommodations but cannot en act this knowledge during the practicum experience. The highest level is achieving mastery. This level is reached wh en pre-service teachers can eventually use a tool efficien tly and effectively in their own classrooms. This level extends beyond the pre-service preparation context and ma y take several years to achieve. It will not, therefore, be possible to include th e level of mastery in this study. Characteristics of Individual Learners As mentioned previously, under activity theory, learning (or lack of learning) occurs as a result of the influences of the individual and so cial learning contexts. In this section, literature with respect to pre-service teachers characte ristics will be reviewed. These characteristics include pre-service teachers prior experiences with schooli ng, their incoming knowledge and beliefs about content, th eir personal attributes, a nd finally their personal goals and expectations. Research pertaining to each of these characteristics follows. Prior Experiences with Schooling As pre-service teachers enter the prep aration context, they bring with them their prior beliefs, knowledge, and experien ces as students during their own K-12 school. Lortie (1975) refers to pre-service teachers prior knowledge about education as the apprenticeship of observation. Their recollections from their own education bac kgrounds have a powerful effect on their learning and knowledge in the preparati on context and on their pr actice and decisions as future professionals (Calderhead & Robson, 1991). The literature in general e ducation indicates that preservice teacher s often enter preparation programs believing they are experts in teaching because of their prior experiences as students (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992; Feiman -Nemser & Buchmann, 1985). Bullough and Stokes (1994) examined pre-service teachers personal metaphors about teaching and found that

PAGE 32

32 they were unrealistically optimistic about their future teaching performance (p.211). Furthermore, they lacked sophisticated ideas about teaching, learning, and students. Harlin (1999) found that pre-service teachers enter prep aration programs with a traditional view of teaching in which they dispense information (Brookhart & Freeman). They subscribe to a transmission view of teaching whereby teachers are the authority on knowledge and students are passive recipients of information; thus, they s ee learning as simple and mechanistic and acquired through listening, reading, and memorizing (Richa rdson, 1996). Their prio r experiences with good teaching do not result in a deep understanding of the complexity of teaching because the knowledge, skills, and decisions characteristic of good teaching are often invisible (Munby, Russell, & Martin, 2001). Thus, they view teach ing as easy (Lortie, 1975), a view that is problematic for any prospective te acher, but particularly problema tic in special education where deep-seated knowledge of curriculum, evidenced-ba sed strategies, and student needs is necessary to provide quality instruction to students with disabilities (Stough & Palmer, 2003) or other struggling learners (Taylor, Pressley, & Pearson, 2000). It is important to note that for most special e ducation pre-service teacher s, the role of prior experiences is different. Pre-se rvice teachers who enroll in special education preparation programs were most likely general education st udents during their K-12 schooling, thus they may have few personal experiences with spec ial education (Pugach, 2005). Special education teacher educators should be aware that pre-serv ice teachers limited prior exposure to special education might result in incomplete and/or inaccurate knowledge and beliefs about special education. Or, the opposite could be true. Pre-serv ice teachers beliefs about special education may be less solidified and more likely to be influenced by special education preparation programs.

PAGE 33

33 From the literature on pre-service teachers prior experiences w ith schooling, it seems possible that these experiences with schooling coul d initially derail thei r tool appropriation for teaching special education. For one thing, pre-serv ice teachers view teaching as simple and could have difficulty, therefore, acquiring and enact ing challenging pedagogical content knowledge such as explicit and systematic phonics instru ction. Pre-service teache rs traditional views of teaching could prove problematic if they are enrolled in preparation programs that emphasize constructivist, student-directed l earning styles because student-di rected learning styles are at odds with the traditional instructional style with which they are most familiar. Finally, entering preparation programs already feeling like expert s could make them resistant to constructive criticism from university instru ctors, field supervisors, and cooperating teachers. Of course, without an in-depth investiga tion, the ways in which any of these prior expe riences with schooling will truly influence individual pre-serv ice teachers appropriation of tools is mere speculation. Incoming Knowledge and Beliefs about Content When providing reading instruction for students with disabilities, there are two broad content areas from which pre-service teacher s would need to draw knowledge. One area is knowledge about students with disabilities and their learning and be havioral needs. The other is knowledge about reading instruction. The amount of incoming knowledge pre-service teachers possess about these areas and the alignment of th eir incoming beliefs with content presented in the preparation context will presumably aff ect their knowledge appropriation (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992). In other words, we know that th eir beliefs act as powerful filters during their coursework (Hollingsworth, 1989; Pajares, 1992). Additionally, pre-service teachers prior knowledge of the population they intend to teach and their prior knowledge of appropriate instructional practices for this population can also filter what they learn. For instance, some pre-

PAGE 34

34 service teachers might not have an understand ing that students can have learning disabilities (LD) in conjunction with above average intelligence. This lack of knowledge and understanding of dual exceptionalities could interfere with incoming knowledge about the high academic expectations that should be placed on gifted students with LD and the necessity for these students to be placed in gifted or enrichment classes. In the following sections, the researcher revi ewed the literature on pre-service teachers incoming knowledge and beliefs about content related to reading and disa bility. Although there is a substantial amount of research on pre-servic e teachers beliefs about content knowledge, it is interesting to note that after reviewing the literature on teacher can didates, Brookhart and Freeman found that entering teacher candidates place more emphasis on nurturing aspects of teaching rather than academic aspects. Preservice teachers preoccupation with nurturing students could interfere with th eir acquisition of pedagogical cont ent knowledge because they are more concerned with the affective aspects of teaching rather than the academic ones. Incoming knowledge and beliefs about reading and struggling readers. As pre-service teachers enter teacher preparation programs, wh at knowledge and prior beliefs about reading do they bring with them? Included in this section are five studies that invest igated this question. Wham (1993) examined pre-service teachers th eoretical orientations to reading, by asking 35 pre-service teachers and their cooperating teachers to complete DeFords (1985) Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TORP). DeFord id entified three theoretical orientations teachers may draw upon in their instructional practices. One emphasizes sound/symbol relationships. The second orientation is based on specific skills, such as using context clues, root words, affixes, and acquiring sight words. The last orientation is a holistic approach. The pre-service teachers completed the TORP before their commencing th eir undergraduate coursework. At that time,

PAGE 35

35 23% scored in the phonics range an d 77% percent scored in the sk ills range. None of the preservice teachers scored in the whole language range. The results of this study could bode well for special education teacher preparation programs that emphasize the importa nce of an explicit, systematic phonics-based reading program that includes strategies to help students with disabilities decode unknown words. Almost a fourth of the pre-servic e teachers entered the preparation program already subscribing to a phonics-based approach to reading and threefourths believed in a skills-based approach that provides students with strategies to tackle unknown words. Investigating teacher perceptions about r eading, Bos, Mather, Dickson, Podhajski, and Chard (2001) assessed 252 pre-service teachers and 286 in-service teachers on two measures, the Teacher Perceptions toward Early Reading and Spelling (TPERS) and the Teacher Knowledge Assessment: Structure of Language (TKA:SL). The TPERS measured teachers perceptions towards explicit and implicit instruction, and the TKA:SL measured teachers knowledge of reading. Specifically, the researchers measur ed teachers phonemic awareness and phonics knowledge. The data were analyzed according to the teachers experience, pre-service or inservice and according to their pos itions, general education or sp ecial education. Bos et al. found that overall, the teachers lacked sufficient knowledge about readi ng instruction. The pre-service teachers answered 53% of the knowledge questio ns correctly and the in-service teachers answered 60% of the questions co rrectly. In terms of perceptions towards reading instruction, all teachers rated explicit instruction higher than implicit instructi on, though the in-service teachers ratings were higher than the pre-service teac hers. The special edu cators ranked explicit instruction higher than the gene ral educators. Like Whams ( 1993) study, this study indicated that pre-service teachers are likely to enter th eir preparation programs with positive perceptions

PAGE 36

36 of explicit instruc tion, though their lack of knowledge about phonemic awareness and phonics could prove to be a barrier to higher levels of appropriation regard ing reading tools and knowledge. Cheek, Steward, Launey, and Borgia ( 2004) also conducted a study on pre-service teacher perceptions. In this study, the researcher s gave The Teachers Reading Aptitude Voice Scale (TRAVS) to 153 pre-service teachers. The pr e-service teachers res ponded to a series of reading belief statements designed to connect reading beliefs to teaching styles. The assessment had four teaching style categorie s: experiential, instructional, relational, and provisional. Experiential, the ability to plan for meaningful experiences for students an d linking instruction to their background knowledge was the st yle valued most. Interestingly, they value this experiential teaching style most, but it is at odds with their tendency to gravitate towards a transmission mode of instruction. These findings may reflect problems associated with examining entering beliefs without examining how they evolve in practice. A study that provided insight into teachers perceptions about struggling readers was conducted by Schell and Rouch (1988). The research ers administered a se mantic differential survey consisting of bipolar ad jectives to a group of pre-serv ice and in-service teachers. For example, one pair of bipolar adjectives was lazy and diligent. The participants used the adjectives to rate thei r feelings about students in low read ing groups. After running an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) the researchers found that pre-service teachers per ceived the low reading group more negatively compared to in-service te achers. Pre-service teachers perceived the low reading group more negatively compared to th e high reading group. The pre-service teachers poor perceptions of students in low reading group s, groups most likely composed of struggling

PAGE 37

37 readers and students with disabilities, could in fluence their knowledge appropriation of reading instruction for students with disabilities negatively. Nierstheimer, Hopkins, and D illon (2000) studied what pre-service teachers believed should be done to help struggling readers. In this study, 67 pre-service teachers completed questionnaires and interviews. Nierstheimer et al. found that the pre-se rvice teachers believed that children struggle with reading because of th eir home situations and because their parents did not read to them. They also felt struggling read ers had inadequate readin g strategies at their disposal. Finally, the data indicated that pre-service teachers assigned the responsibility of reading instruction to others in cluding parents, reading specialists, and tutors. This finding is particularly concerning for special education pre-se rvice teachers, as school s often charge special educators with the responsibility of teaching struggling readers. Incoming knowledge and beliefs about students with disabilities. The majority of studies on teachers beliefs and attitudes concerning students with disabilities have focused on in-service general educators and (a) their belie fs and attitudes about inclusive education and students with disabilities, (b) th e effects of their preservice preparation, a nd (c) the relationship between diversity and disability (Pugach, 2005) Fewer studies have examined pre-service teachers incoming beliefs, attitude s, and knowledge about students w ith disabilities. This section provides information on four such studies. In 1999, Hutchinson and Martin, conducted a qualitative study anal yzing pre-service teachers responses to dilemma cases about students with disabilities. The results indicated that the pre-service teachers lacked knowledge for help ing students with disabilities, especially those who exhibit behavior problems. Additionally, the pr e-service teachers belief s indicated a lack of commitment to the most challenging students.

PAGE 38

38 Two years later, Taylor and Sobel (2001) conducted a survey st udy of 129 pre-service teachers beliefs about disability. These research ers found that the pre-service teachers held high expectations for students with disabilities. More over, the pre-service teachers believed it was their responsibility to provide an equitable education to all students. But when it came to their knowledge about how to help students with disabi lities, the pre-service teachers admitted they lacked knowledge about how to ad apt instruction and create cl assrooms where students with disabilities would succeed. Si milarly, Cook (2002) surveyed 181 pre-service teachers about inclusive education and found that they rated th eir ability to teach st udents with learning disabilities higher than other disability groups, but that they still questioned their knowledge and preparedness to teach in an inclusive setting. Finally, in the most recent study, conducted by Garriott, Miller, and Snyder (2003), 239 pre-service teachers were surv eyed about their beliefs concerning inclusive education and students with mild disabilities. The majority of the participants (55%) be lieved that students with mild disabilities should receive in struction in general education classrooms. Forty-five percent of the participants, however, believed students with mild disabilities should be placed in special education classrooms because these students would receive more individualized attention in such classrooms. Like the participants in the Taylor and Sobel (2001) and Cook (2002) studies, the pre-service teachers in the Garrio tt, Miller, and Snyder (2003) study expressed concerns for their lack of knowledge and skills to t each students with disabilities. The studies on pre-service teachers beliefs a nd attitudes about students with disabilities seem to provide mixed findings. The one qualita tive study provided evidence that pre-service teachers hold negative beliefs about students with disabilities and inclusive education (Hutchinson & Martin, 1999), while two of the surv ey studies indicated that pre-service teachers

PAGE 39

39 hold positive beliefs about student s with disabilities and their pl acement in general education classrooms. In the third survey study, the participants were nearly evenly split in their beliefs about students with disa bilities being educated in general education ve rsus special education classrooms. It is important to note that thes e one shot surveys did not follow pre-service teachers throughout their preparation programs or in to their future classr ooms. We have little understanding, therefore, of how their beliefs were shaped over time or how these beliefs influenced classroom practice. One finding, however, was consistent across all four studies. The pre-service teachers readily adm itted that they lacked the requisite knowledge and skills to successfully teach student s with disabilities. Relating the findings from these studies back to the activity theory conceptual framework, pre-service teachers incoming beliefs and knowledge about students with disabilities could work to influence their appropriation of tools in various ways. For pre-service teachers who enter preparation programs with positive beliefs about students with disa bilities in inclusive education, it seems they will be met with more congruen ce during their special e ducation training. The opposite could be true for pre-service teachers wh o hold negative views but who are enrolled in collaborative preparation programs or programs emphasizing inclusionary practices. The fact that the pre-service teachers realize they lack sufficient knowledge to help students with disabilities could facil itate their tool appropriation about special education. The pre-service teachers might pay particular attention to this information because they are lacking it and know it is critical to their success as teachers. In this section, literature on i ndividual characteristics of preservice teacher learners has been presented. Up to this point, the research presented has focused on pre-service teachers prior experiences with schooling an d their prior beliefs and knowledge about th e content areas of

PAGE 40

40 reading and disability. The final two areas of research that are classified under individual characteristics of learners are personal attributes and persona l goals and expectations. This section concludes with a re view of these two areas. Personal Attributes What are the personal attributes of pre-se rvice teachers who ar e successful in their knowledge acquisition and com pletion of a prep aration program? Research supports two attributes, reflection and self-effi cacy, as being important factors in pre-service teachers success. In the following section, research on reflection and self-efficacy is presented. Reflection. Reflection can be thought of as a deliberative cognitive process involving sequences of related ideas aimed at solving a practical problem (Hatton & Smith, 1995). In other words, reflection is the stepping back and thinking about the past or it is the evaluation of a problem with the hopes of developing a solution. Research has shown that the personal attribute of reflection influences pre-service teacher l earning and success. Richards and Morse (2002) conducted a case study of a pre-service teacher, Alisha, a successful pr e-service teacher who consistently attained high achievement in he r preparation program. At the time of the study, Alisha was supporting the literacy needs of students with di sabilities during her student teaching experience. Richards and Morse characterized Alisha as compassionate, calm, composed, positive, and reflective. Alishas personal attributes especially her reflectiveness, influenced her practice in positive ways. By thinking about her students and their individual needs, Alisha was successful differentiating her instruction and providing her students with literacy tasks commensurate with their ability. Two years later, Garmon (20 04) conducted a case study of a pre-service teacher who successf ully acquired multicultural awar eness and sensitivity towards student diversity. Like Richards and Morse, Garmon found that the students open disposition and self-reflectiveness were among the key factor s influencing her succes s. Unlike Richards and

PAGE 41

41 Morse, however, Garmon did not tie the particip ants personal attributes to her classroom practices. Self-efficacy A second important attribute characterizi ng successful pre-service teachers is self-efficacy. According to Tschannen-Moran, Wool folk Hoy, and Hoy (1998), self-efficacy is a term for a teachers judgment of his or her capa bilities to bring out desi red outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among the most challenging students. The concept of selfefficacy in pre-service teacher education is important, because as Bandura (1995) pointed out, peoples beliefs about their abiliti es will determine how much effort they put forth in situations and how resilient and persistent they will be in the f ace of obstacles. One potential obstacle for pre-service teachers is their student teaching, a time when their self-efficacy has been shown to decline (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990). As Hoy and Woolfolk point out, the challenges of assuming teacher roles a nd responsibilities could disrupt pre-service teachers prior beliefs that teaching is easy, thus making them feel less capable. Under activity theory, it seems pre-service teachers who are mo re self-efficacious will reach higher levels of knowledge appropriation because they will persevere despite challenging coursework or practicum teaching placements. In 1980, Mundel-Atherstone examined the psyc hological characteris tics of pre-service teachers who received high ratings during their student teaching experience. These pre-service teachers personality profiles indicated they were poised and self-assured (self-efficacious), but the ways in which these profiles affected the pr e-service teachers appr opriation of tools and knowledge was never discussed. Alisha from th e Richards and Morse (2002) study also was found to have a high sense of self-efficacy. She had high expectations for her students and a high internal locus of control, meaning she felt sh e had the ability to influence her students

PAGE 42

42 achievement. In another study, pre-service teacher s who exhibited high levels of self-efficacy were rated highly on lesson presentation, quest ioning, and classroom management by their cooperating teachers (Saklofske, Michaluk, & Randhawa, 1988). Poulu (2007) investigated contributory factors to pre-servi ce teachers developing self-effic acy. Poulu found that sources of pre-service teachers self -efficacious beliefs included a positive stance, enthusiasm, the ability to perceive students needs, and the ability to effectively organize instructional activities. Personal Goals, Expectations, and Concerns The final individual characteristic is pers onal goals, expectations, and concerns. As Grossman et al. (1999) pointed out, the reasons prospective teachers en ter teacher education programs will likely mediate their learning. Addi tionally, there is much research on teacher development that shows teachers, both in-service and pre-service, proceed through a series of phases that regulate their concer ns and anxieties about teachin g. In the following sections, research on pre-service teachers goals and expectations and their concerns is reviewed. Personal goals and expectations. Several researchers have examined how pre-service teachers personal goals influence their preparat ion experiences. Grossman et al., (1999) found that teacher candidates varying reasons for entering the teaching profession mediated their learning. In this study, one pre-se rvice teacher wanted to make instruction fun, while another wanted to provide students with the necessary tools for literac y. These differing goals led to different degrees of value on pragmatic literacy skills and their role in the language arts curriculum (p. 25). In their review of 44 studies on teacher candidates, Brookhart & Freeman (1992) found the most cited reasons pre-servi ce teachers gave for entering the teaching profession were to work with children, satisfy al truistic, service-oriented goals, and because they were driven by intrinsic s ources of motivation. Although Br ookhart & Freeman examined

PAGE 43

43 teacher candidates motivations, th eir review did not explicate how or whether these motivations affected their preparation experiences. A diffe rent study, however, did link pre-service teachers goals with their preparation e xperiences. Sudzina and Knowles (1993) searched for explanations for why some pre-service teachers fail before completing their preparation programs. They found that pre-service teachers who entered their student teaching with unrealistic goals experienced many struggles. One pr e-service teacher in their study felt his job was to save the kids and the world (Sudzina & Knowles, p. 259). This participants unrealistic goal proved to be his undoing because he challenged his cooperating teachers authority and her actions under the pretense of doing what he considered to be the morally corr ect thing (p. 259). In addition to their personal goals and mo tivations for entering teaching, pre-service teachers expectations concerning their preparation program can influence their learning. Preservice teachers expect that fiel d placements and practical teachi ng experiences will be the most beneficial (Book & Freeman, 1986), perhaps resulti ng in their rejection of incoming knowledge from their university coursewor k, especially if the pre-service teachers cannot discern any direct practical applications. Sudzina and Knowles (1993) found that preservice teachers who did not succeed in their preparation pr ograms often failed to allocate sufficient planning time. These students underestimated the difficu lties involved with planning for and delivering instruction for a classroom of students. Their l ack of planning and organization of ten resulted in their practice being disjointed and unrespons ive to student needs. Concerns. Over the past 40 years, considerable research has accumulated supporting the notion that teachers concerns evolve through a series of stages (Berliner, 1988; Brookhart & Freeman, 1992; Fuller, 1969; Kagan, 1992; Pi gge & Marso, 1987, 1990). This research has shown that during their preparation programs, th e extent to which pre-service teachers value

PAGE 44

44 various kinds of knowledge is largely dependent on their teaching concerns; thus, knowledge that is found to be useful in addressing their concerns a nd anxieties is appreciated more and given more attention. This line of research is impor tant to understanding how pre-service teachers appropriate tools and knowledge because it can possibly provide explanations for why certain types of knowledge are more easily appropriated compared to others. In a seminal article, Fuller (1969) outlined a three-phase developmental conceptualization of teacher concerns. Under the Fuller model, th e three phases are (a) pre-teaching, (b) early teaching, and (c) late teaching. The pre-teaching pha se occurs before the pre-service teacher has had any teaching experiences. At this time, th e pre-service teachers concerns are vague, consisting of generalized apprehension and anxiet y. Fuller referred to the pre-teaching phase as a time of non-concern. Concerns observed during the early teaching phase focus primarily on the self. Pre-service teachers worry about their adeq uacy as a teacher, their ability to manage students, and their evaluation by supervisors. In the final phase, concerns shift from the self to the students. Here teachers are more concerned w ith their impact on their students. It should be noted, that as with many stage or phase theories, for example, Kubler-Rosss (1969) Five Stages of Grief, individuals do not pr oceed through phases in a regime nted fashion. How and whether an individual proceeds through all the phases is largely dependent on the individual and his or her personal circumstances. Pigge and Marso (1990) corroborated the Fuller (1969) model in a longitudinal study of 153 pre-service teachers. Pigge and Marso found th at as pre-service teachers progressed through their preparation program, their concerns shifted from those of selfsurvival to those centering on the task of teaching and being an effective teacher. The research related to preservice teachers pe rsonal goals, expectations, and concerns plays an important role when examining the in fluence of pre-service teachers individual

PAGE 45

45 characteristics on their learning. Th e literature reviewed in the prev ious section showed that preservice teachers appropri ation of conceptual and practical tool s could be influenced by (a) their reasons for entering the field of education, (b) thei r expectations of their preparation program, (c) their expectations of teaching itself, and (d) th eir personal concerns and anxieties about teaching. Of critical importance to teacher educators is th e research that indicat ed pre-service teachers enter preparation programs with nave expectat ions about how difficult teaching is and how much planning is necessary for delivering effectiv e instruction. For special education pre-service teachers, this seems particularly important, as these teachers will need to invest much time planning so they are able to provide targeted instruction for students w ith disabilities. Also important is the research that showed preservice teachers place mo st value on practical experiences, such as field experiences and st udent teaching. Finally, according to the Fuller (1969) model, before pre-service teachers will be ready to devote attention to securing high student achievement, they need to rectify their co ncerns with their own adequacies as developing teachers. According to the conceptual framework guidi ng this study, individual characteristics of learners comprise just one source of influe nce on pre-service teacher learning. The other potential sources of influence ar e the social contexts of pre-se rvice teacher learning, namely, the various components of teacher preparation programs. The remainder of this literature review will present research on the social contexts of pre-se rvice teacher learning and the features of these contexts that either support or hinder pedagogical t ool appropriation. Social Contexts of Pre-service Teacher Learning Ar med with their prior expe riences, knowledge, beliefs, expe ctations, and concerns, preservice teachers enter th e social contexts of pre-service teacher learning. Within preparation programs, pre-service teachers are exposed to a variety of learning contex ts and pedagogies. In

PAGE 46

46 thinking about how pre-service teachers acquire knowledge and practice, it is important to examine what the research says about features of teacher preparation programs that hinder or support tool appropriation. In part icular, what are the characteris tics of programs that have proven successful in preparing pre-service teachers? Several studies have shown that effective pr eparation programs have a shared vision for teaching that permeates coursework and field experiences. In 2000, Darling-Hammond conducted case studies of seven exemplary teacher education programs. She found that the programs had a shared understanding of good teaching across all preparation stakeholders and across all courses and field experiences. Fang an d Ashley (2004) conducted an in-depth study of pre-service teachers interpretations of a field-ba sed reading block that combined three courses in reading instruction that previ ously had been taught separatel y. The combination of the three courses allowed the course instructors to co llaborate extensively to develop a coherent programmatic vision, resulting in the pre-serv ices teachers developing a comprehensive knowledge base about reading instruction for st ruggling readers. Fina lly, the International Reading Association (2003) sponsored NCEETPRI study of eight exemplar y reading preparation programs and found these exemplary reading progra ms were characterized by a literacy vision that was shared by all instructors. Subsequent IRA studies compar ed graduates of exemplary reading preparation programs to graduates who did not complete specialized reading programs. Th e results indicated that the graduates of the exemplary reading programs perf ormed better during their first three years of teaching than did graduates who did not comp lete the reading programs. These graduates demonstrated more sophisticated and appropriate beliefs. Specifically, graduates of exemplary programs valued their preparation, adopted a mi ndful and responsive inst ructional stance, and

PAGE 47

47 sought ongoing support for themselves and their students (Maloch et al., 2003). These graduates also scored higher on the TEX-IN2 observation instrument, which assesses the classroom literacy environment (Hoffman et al., 2005). A ccording to the levels of appropriation under activity theory, the high level of congruence infused in these pr ograms will most likely support pre-service teachers tool appropriation. In addition to shared vision, the alignment of coursework and field experiences is a critical component of effective preparation programs. Darling-Hammond (2000) found that exemplary programs contained at least 30 hours of field experiences that s upported concurrent coursework. Pre-service teachers needed extensive opportuniti es to apply their new knowledge in practical settings (Fang & Ashley, 2004; IRA, 2003). Duff y and Atkinson (2001) analyzed the reflection essays, lesson plans, and tutoring logs of 22 pr e-service teachers enrolled in teacher education courses to see how these students beliefs about struggling reader s and reading practices evolved over the course of a year. The pre-service teachers took courses focused on reading instruction and the assessment of diverse learners. Both co urses had an internship component with the assessment course requiring the pre-service te achers to tutor a struggling reader. After completing qualitative content analysis, the res earchers found that the pre-service teachers improved in their abilities to in tegrate their personal, practical, and professional knowledge about reading instruction, and they decreased their mi sunderstandings surroundi ng reading instruction. They increased in their ability to critically analyze reading instruc tion in terms of theory and best practice and reported increased estimations of th eir preparedness to teach struggling readers. Linek et al. (1999) studied the beliefs and self-repor ts of pre-service teachers from three different literacy methods courses. Seven pre-service teachers were in a course that had no field placement. Twenty-five students were enrolled in a course that had an unsupervised field

PAGE 48

48 placement, and eight pre-service te achers were in a course with a supervised field placement. Students who were in the course that had no fi eld placement reported feeling overwhelmed from not having an opportunity to enact their newly acquired literacy knowledge. The students in the courses containing field placements reported that the field placement and its related practical activities were most influen tial to their learning. Finall y, Wilson, Floden, and Ferrini-Mundy (2001) conducted a literature revi ew on teacher preparation and f ound that the quality of student teaching experiences varies, but the best experien ces are characterized as being focused and well structured. Another important feature of effective prepar ation programs is methods courses designed to deepen pedagogical content knowledge (Dar ling-Hammond, 2000). The National Center for Research on Teacher Learning (1991) examin ed seven pre-service teacher programs. The researchers found that the main distinction be tween the programs influence on pre-service teacher learning was whether a programs substa nce was considered traditional or reform. Traditional programs paid little attention to subject matter and emphasized classroom organization. Reform programs emphasized subj ect-specific teaching. From the review on preservice teachers incoming knowledge and beliefs, this factor seems especially important because there is evidence that preservice teachers la ck knowledge about phonics and phonemic awareness (Bos et al., 2001). Finally, in their study of pre-service teacher beliefs, Nierstheimer et al. (2000) found that pre-service teachers participation in an intense reading tutoring program for struggling readers helped the pre-service teachers adopt more interventionist beliefs about helping struggling readers. The reading tutor program provided the preservice teachers with opportunities to enact pedagogical content know ledge about reading.

PAGE 49

49 Several studies have linked teachers part icipation in courses emphasizing pedagogical content knowledge with student achievement. M onk (1994) found that teachers participation in mathematics courses designed to provide pedagog ical content knowledge resulted in a valueadded effect on students achievement. Guarino, Hamilton, Lockwood, and Rathbun (2006) studied kindergarten teachers a nd found that those teachers who participated in more methods courses in reading and mathematics reported more classroom practices kn own to be associated with greater student achievement compar ed to teachers with fewer courses. Finally, preparation programs should be collaborative across activity systems. Cooperating teachers have a profound impact on pre-service teachers (Wilson et al., 2001), thus teacher educators need to form productive and collabora tive partnerships with cooperating teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2000; IRA, 2003). Sudzina a nd Knowles (1993) found that pre-service teachers who failed during their preparation program often had student teaching placements characterized by mismatches in philosophies, methods, and styles between the pre-service teacher, the cooperating teacher, th e field supervisor, and the prep aration program as a whole. More recently, Pierce (2004) found mismatches between pre-service teachers literacy coursework and their student te aching experiences. The pre-se rvice teachers in this study expressed frustrations because they could not implement their newly acquired knowledge during their student teaching experience. For instance, th e pre-service teachers learned about the value of small, flexible groupings for reading instruct ion, yet their student teaching experiences made use of whole-group instruction, thus proving to be obstacles to enacting the new knowledge about reading groups. There is only one analysis that examines the current state of speci al education teacher programming in light of research on exemplary teacher education programs. Brownell, Ross,

PAGE 50

50 Colon and McCallum (2005) found in a review of special education programs, the faculty stressed the importance of collaboration and well -planned and well-supervis ed field experiences. These programs also focused on issues of diversity and on the evaluati on of student learning either through direct or indi rect assessment. The special education programs adopted more positivist rather than constructivist epistemologi cal views, with few programs revealing a strong programmatic vision. Finally, the special education programs st ressed general pedagogical knowledge such as instructional methods and indi vidualized education plans rather than subject specific pedagogy. It can be assumed that the we ll-planned field experiences that characterize effective special education programs will s upport pre-service teacher learning and tool appropriation, however, the lack of a strong prog rammatic vision could pr ove to be a barrier because pre-service teacher might not receiv e congruent messages. Also, knowing that preservice teachers enter preparation programs with lack of know ledge for teaching reading to students with disabilities, the la ck of subject specific pedagogy could also be problematic in integrating knowledge to appropria te tools. These are merely spec ulations as Brownell et al. did not tie the special education programs to important teacher or student outcomes. The above literature indicates that effective general education pre-service teacher programs are cohesive, collaborative, and purposefully designed to deepen pedagogical content knowledge (Darling-Hammond, 2000; IRA, 2003; Wilson et al ., 2001). With only one analysis of special education teacher preparation programs, the field of special education is in need of more studies that examine and evaluate various preparation program elements. Specifically, what program components seem to matter in special educat ion pre-service teachers construction of knowledge? Do prospective teacher s incoming beliefs and knowledge differentially interact with these program components? Finally, what are the implications of special education

PAGE 51

51 programs that emphasize general pedagogical k nowledge over pedagogi cal content knowledge? In other words, what are the implications of programs that emphasize knowledge of general instructional practices over know ledge that is necessary to e ffectively convey content to students? All of these questions represent potential sources of influence for knowledge acquisition and tool appropriation. Conclusion As this rev iew of the literature has shown, the individual characteristics of pre-service teachers such as their incoming beliefs, prior expe riences, expectations, at tributes, and concerns are influential to their learning. Their beliefs and prior experiences are based on pre-service teachers own time spent as students. Pre-servic e teachers prior belief s and experiences will likely influence the degree to which conceptual and practical tools are appropriated. Where there is congruence between pre-service teacher prior beliefs and new tools and knowledge, appropriation should be supported. In instances where a pre-servic e teachers prior beliefs and experiences are in opposition to new tools and knowledge, appropriation will difficult (if not impossible). For teacher educators hoping to alter pre-service teacher beliefs to support new tools and knowledge, extensive time and support will be necessary (Kennedy, 1991; NCRTL, 1991; Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998). The research also indicated that pre-service teachers personal expectations, attributes, and concerns are influential to their learning. In essence, preservice teachers pay particular at tention to those experiences that they believe are most relevant and useful to helping overcome their concerns. In the area of special education, however, the role of incoming beliefs, experiences, and expectations is not well underst ood in the literature ye t. The majority of pre-service teachers have had few prior experiences in special educat ion and with students with disabilities. These

PAGE 52

52 pre-service teachers may be open to new understandi ngs about special education, or their lack of prior experiences and knowledge may be large barriers for teacher educ ators to overcome. The structure of social learni ng contexts, namely the preparation program, is an important factor in facilitating or hindering the appropriation of tools by pre-service teachers. First, preparation programs that support teacher learning have a shared vision and alignment across coursework, personnel, and field experien ces (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Fang & Ashley, 2004; IRA, 2003; Wilson, et al., 2001). It can be assumed that tool appropriation will be easier if preservice teachers receive sim ilar messages and philosophies th roughout the preparation program. For example, a pre-service teacher who comple tes a reading methods course emphasizing the benefits of explicit systematic reading instructio n and then witnesses this type of instruction during a field placement will more likely appropriate such conceptual and practical tools. Second, exemplary programs provide pre-serv ice teachers with opportunities to deepen pedagogical content knowledge (Darling-Ha mmond, 2000; NCRTL, 2001). For special education pre-service teachers, opportunities to deepen pedag ogical content knowledge may not be as readily available compared to their genera l education counterparts. Traditionally, the field of special education has been ch aracterized by a lack of subject specific preparation, more often emphasizing general pedagogical practices. Finally, effective programs are characterized by collaboration across university personnel and cooperating teachers in the field (Darling-Hammond, 2000; IRA, 2003; Wilson et al., 2001). A lack of coordination and communication betwee n the university context and field experiences can lead to confusion and frustration on the part of the pre-service teach er and therefore will affect knowledge appropriation negatively.

PAGE 53

53 Unfortunately, the limited existing research base on special educa tion teacher programs jeopardizes clear understandings of how these programs influence special education pre-service teacher learning and knowledge acquisition. In other words, especially in the field of special education, there is still much work to be done to determine the ways in which teacher preparation matters. It is crucial, therefore, that we engage in research that will illuminate the ways in which special education pre-service teachers acquire knowledge and appropriate pedagogical tools for teaching students with disabilities and the role(s ) preparation programs play in this acquisition and appropriation.

PAGE 54

54 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN Introduction The purpose of this qualitative study is to in vestigate how learning experiences in special education teacher preparation programs relate to teacher candidates in the context of reading instruction. More specif ically, the purpose of this study is to examin e special education preservice teachers appropri ation of pedagogical tools for reading instru ction, as it is enacted in the classroom, for students with mild disabilities. Empirical data coll ected from classrooms in which special education pre-service teachers enact read ing instruction will be used to develop grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Such grounded theory will help gain an understanding of the interactions among special education pre-servic e teachers (specifically their individual characteristics), thei r social contexts for reading pr eparation, and their enactment of reading instruction. Theoretical Background The theoretical perspective underly ing this qualitative study is constructivism. A critical tenet of constructivism is that individuals ar e viewed as active agen ts, acquiring knowledge about the world through experien ces with their environments (C rotty, 1998). Constructivism is well aligned with the principles of activity theory. For example, a primary tenet of constructivism is that multiple realities exist and that the kno wer and respondent (in this case teacher educators and pre-service teachers) co -create understandings of the world (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). The idea of multip le realities and multiple knowers and respondents coincides with activity theorys position that learning oc curs across various learning contexts. In the constructivist framework, the participants pe rceptions and meaning-making are of primary importance (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). With construc tivism as the theoreti cal perspective, the

PAGE 55

55 participants are viewed as the experts, and thei r constructions of knowledge will be of particular interest. In this study, it is assumed that pre-service teachers are active participants in constructing and enacting their knowledge about teaching reading to students with disabilities. The preservice teachers knowledge about reading instruction for students with disabilities is a product of their prior experiences with schooling and their ongoing interactions with the various experiences in the Unified Elem entary PROTEACH program. According to constructivism, the pre-service teachers in this study may constr uct knowledge for reading instruction and knowledge about students with disabilities differe ntly, despite completing the same preparation program. By gaining a more comprehensive unde rstanding of the various ways in which preservice teachers construct knowle dge about reading instruction fo r students with disabilities, hopefully, special education teacher educators can us e this information to craft effective special education preparation programs that will bene fit pre-service teachers from a variety of backgrounds. Research Design To answer the research questions of th is study, qualitative research methodology was employed. The purpose of qualitative methods is to gain in-depth information that leads to greater understandings about social phenomen a (Creswell, 1998). Qualitative research methodology necessitates close examin ation of a social phenomenon in its natural settings so that rich descriptions about the phenomenon can be produced (Merriam, 1995). Such in-depth examinations allow researchers to gain insigh ts about a phenomenon and subsequently, develop a plan of action. The descriptive and inductive nature of qualitative i nquiry can lead to the formation of hypotheses and theory, allowing the researchers analyses to have explanatory

PAGE 56

56 power. Therefore, qualitative research was appr opriate to study how pre-service teachers construct knowledge and explain how they inte ract with their prep aratory experiences. Qualitative methods are well suited for i nvestigations aimed at studying social phenomenon for which there is little existing info rmation. The lack of information about special education teacher preparation programs and their in fluence on pre-service teachers constructions of knowledge makes qualitative methods ideal for this study. Sample Selection Pre-service Teachers To understand how individuals and teacher e ducation p rograms interact, it was necessary to secure a sample of participants who had heterogeneous beliefs, knowledge, and prior experiences concerning reading in struction and students with disa bilities. It was important to recruit participants whose incoming beliefs, pr ior experiences, and most importantly, knowledge about reading instruction differed, so that the researcher could di scern and explain differences in their interactions with their prep aration program and in their appr opriation of instructional tools and knowledge. To obtain such a sample, the particip ants were selected us ing purposive criterion sampling techniques that were gr ouped into two phases, each of which is described below. Phase I sample selection. The purpose of phase I sampling was to create a list of preservice teachers whose pract icum placement environments fit the study parameters. To participate in this study, pre-se rvice teachers had to (a) be fi rst semester special education Masters level students in the Unified Elementary PROTEACH program, (b) have fall 2007 Alachua County practicum placements in elementa ry classrooms that required work with students with mild disabilities, and (c) provide reading instruction to students during the practicum placement. The researcher worked in conjunction with the special education

PAGE 57

57 supervisor of field experiences to generate a list of pre-service teachers who met the above selection criteria. Eighteen pre-service teachers fit the selection criteria. Phase II sample selection The purpose of phase II sampling was to ensure that the final sample was small to allow for in-depth examination and time in the field and included participants who represented diverse backgrounds and knowledge bases. The researcher asked the 18 pre-service teachers to complete an openended survey assessing their beliefs and prior experiences as well as a concept map that a ssessed their knowledge abou t reading instruction. The survey and concept map are included in Appendix A. After reviewing the surveys and concept maps, the researcher narrowed the sample size to eight pre-service teachers. To narrow the sample from 18 to 8, the researcher used a vari ety of criteria. First, th e researcher sorted the concept maps into three groups according to their level of detail and sophistication. The groupings represented low detail and sophistication (N=4), medium detail and sophistication (N=9), and high detail and sophist ication (N=5). Then, within each of the three groups, the researcher evaluated the pre-service teachers pr ior experiences with children with disabilities, their experiences during their K-12 schooling, and their beliefs about re ading instruction for students with disabilities, looking particularly for pre-service teachers whose prior experiences and beliefs varied. The result was eight preservice teachers who varied in their prior experiences, beliefs, and knowledge. Before establishing the final sample, the researcher questioned each of the eight preservice teachers individually about their concep t maps. This allowed the researcher to gain a clearer understanding of the pr e-service teachers beliefs and knowledge about reading instruction. Additionally, the res earcher questioned the eight pr e-service teachers about their practicum placements. Two pre-service teachers were dropped from the final sample because,

PAGE 58

58 though their practicum placements were in inclus ive classrooms, they reported having little individual interaction with student s with disabilities, thus they were eliminated from the final sample. The final sample was narrowed to six pre-servic e teachers. This sample size allowed for indepth examination and fieldwork while also in cluding a representation of various backgrounds, beliefs, and prior knowledge. The researcher a ttended the pre-service teachers practicum seminar class and invited the final six pre-se rvice teachers to participate in the study. The participants were recruited under the permission of the University of Flor ida Institutional Review Board (UFIRB) as well as the department of Re search, Assessment, and School Information of the School Board of Alachua C ounty (Appendix B). Decisions for participation were strictly voluntary. For her participation, each pre-serv ice teacher received a $50 gift card and was exempt from one class assignment from the pr acticum seminar course. Specific information about each participant is incl uded in a subsequent section. It should be noted that the researcher also administered The Content Knowledge for Teaching Reading Survey developed by Phelps an d Schilling (2004) as part of the sample selection procedure. The Phelps and Shilling Content Knowledge for Teaching Reading Survey is comprised of 119 items categorized into 3 subscales: (a) knowle dge of content in comprehension, (b) knowledge of content and t eaching in comprehension, and (c) knowledge of content in word analysis. This assessment was intended to help the researcher discern differences between the pre-se rvice teachers incoming knowledge about teaching reading. The survey results indicated, however, only slight diffe rences in the pre-service teachers scores. The average of the final six participants scores was 89 out of 119 items. Th e six participants had

PAGE 59

59 scores in the mid-80s to 90s, with the exception of one student, Kristy, who scored more than 15 points below the mean. PROTEACH Instructors and Field Supervisors Because teacher educato rs and field supervisors are active agents in fa cilitating pre-service teachers acquisition and enactment of knowledge it was necessary for the researcher to understand the perspectives teacher educators br ought to preparation contexts. Furthermore, according to activity theory, teacher educators an d field supervisors are an integral part of activity systems, thus th eir participation in this study was essential. The pre-service teachers field supervisors and teacher educators who taught reading methods courses were invited to participate in the study. The pre-service teachers named a total of three field supervisors and seven teacher educators. The researcher sent an email inviting these field supervisors and teacher educators to participate. The researcher receive d positive replies from all three field supervisors and six of the teacher educators. One teacher ed ucator did not reply to repeated email and phone messages. The field supervisors and teacher educ ators participation was strictly voluntary and was secured with the approval of the UFIRB (Appendix B). Cooperating Teachers Sim ilar to the field supervisors and teacher educators, cooperating teachers are important agents in the larger preparation activity system, thus the cooperating teachers perspectives were sought. To examine the role of the cooperating teacher in helping the pre-service teachers construct knowledge about reading instruction, th e cooperating teacher paired with each of the six pre-service teachers was i nvited to participate via phone or email. All six cooperating teachers agreed to participate in the study. Their participation was strictly voluntary and was secured under the permission of the UFIRB as we ll as the department of Research, Assessment,

PAGE 60

60 and School Information of the School Board of Alachua County (Appendix B). For her participation, each cooperating teacher received a $25 gift card. Participant and Practicum Placement Information Based on the results of the selection procedur es, six pre-service teachers (5 Caucasian; 1 Indian) were recruited for this study. In the following sections, information about each preservice teacher, including he r prior experiences and beliefs her cooperating teacher, her practicum placement, and her reading coursework is provided. Table 3-1 provides a summary of this information. Table 3-2 provides more specifi c information about each pre-service teachers practicum placement. All names, including school na mes, have been replaced with pseudonyms. Pre-service Teachers and Cooperating Teachers Anita and Mrs. Adams. Anita was 22 years old and of Indi an descent. Anita attend ed an international school in Thailand for grades pre-K through 12. Anita valued this experience because of the diverse make-up of students and t eachers. Anitas mother was a teacher at this school. Anita hopes to one day be an internationa l schoolteacher. During the PROTEACH program, Anita was placed in Kindergarten, first, and second grade inclusive classroo ms. She described the Kindergarten and second grade classrooms as being wonderful experiences, which allowed her to see many theories put into practice. Her second grade experience, however, was not as helpful because she viewed many of the instructional practices to be ineffective and obsolete. When asked about her beliefs about how best to teach students with disabilities how to read, Anitas response centered on the importance of systematic, step-by-st ep direct instruction formats. She believed in the use of small group instruction and providing students with multiple opportunities to practice and generalize th eir skills. Finally, Anita believed modeling

PAGE 61

61 good reading habits, sharing ent husiasm for reading, and readi ng for different purposes is important. Anitas practicum placement was in a 3rd grade inclusive classroom at Washington Elementary. Washington Elementary Schools per centage of students on free/reduced lunch was approximately 36 and its minority rate was 43%. During the 90-mi nute reading instruction block, the 3rd graders were ability grouped into above grad e level reading classrooms and at or below grade level reading classrooms. Anitas class fo r reading instruction was the average to below average reading group, and within this reading classroom, there were 4 students with mild disabilities. Anitas cooperating teacher was Mrs. Adams. Mrs. Adams was a general educator who began her teaching career as a Kindergarten teacher at a privat e school, after which time she taught 4th grade for 9 years in public schools. Mrs. Adams has been at Washington Elementary for two years, and this was her first time teaching 3rd grade. For reading instruction, Mrs. Adams used the district adopted Harcour t Brace reading series and she also pulled in elements from the Success for All (SFA) model. Colleen and Mrs. Carter. Colleen was 22 years old and Ca ucasian. She attended school in a predominantly white middle-class school di strict in New York. Before completing her practicum, she had no experiences teaching children to read. She did, however, have more extensive prior experien ces with students with disabilitie s as her younger brother was diagnosed with Autism. Her pre-internship placement was in a 5th grade inclusive classroom, and she also spent a semester volunteering at a school fo r students with emo tional handicaps.

PAGE 62

62 Colleen believed that it is cruc ial to teach students with lear ning disabilities how to read because it is a vital life skill. In her opinion, the best approach is to discover how each child learns the best and tailor th e instruction individually. For her practicum, Colleen worked with Kindergartners and 1st graders at Clinton Elementary. Serving approximately 800 students, Clinton Elementary was the largest of the schools in this study. About one th ird of the students at this sc hool were on free/reduced lunch and 45% of the student populati on was classified in the minority rate. The service delivery model that was used in Kindergarten and 1st grade was a push in/pull out model for reading and math. Colleen worked with the lowest ability st udents for reading and ma th in Kindergarten and 1st grade. Mrs. Carter, Colleens coope rating teacher, was in her 14th year of teaching. Mrs. Carter had taught in elementary self-contained special education classrooms for 12 years until Clinton Elementary transitioned to an inclusive model. For the past 2 years, Mrs. Carter has worked as a co-teacher in inclus ive Kindergarten and 1st grade classrooms and has also worked as a resource teacher for students who need intensive remediat ion. For reading instruction, Mrs. Carter used the Harcourt reading series but also relied on Reading Mastery. Kristy and Mrs. Kirk. Kristy was 27 years old and a ttended school in rural South Carolina in predominantly low SES schools. Sh e dropped out of school her senior year and received her diploma through an adult educa tion program. Before beginning her practicum, Kristy had few prior experiences with student s with disabilities. One of her prior field experiences was in a 5th grade inclusive classroom in a rural area.

PAGE 63

63 Kristy believed reading shoul d be a fusion of both phonemic awareness and phonics and a holistic approach. In her view, st udents should interact socially. Finally, Kristy felt that it was important to assess students and accentuate what they were good at. Kristys practicum was at Kennedy Elementa ry, a school comprised of approximately 460 students. At Kennedy Elementary, almost half of the students were on free/reduced lunch and were minorities. Kristy completed her practicum in a multi-age K-2 inclusive classroom. Mrs. Kirk was Kristys cooperating teacher. Mrs. Kirk was in her 35th year of teaching as a general educator, and tau ght all grade levels from K-5. At th e time of the study, Mrs. Kirk taught a multi-age inclusive class of Kindergartners, 1st, and 2nd graders. For reading, Mrs. Kirk used the Harcourt Trophies reading se ries and structured reading ar ound a program called the Daily 5. The Daily 5 was composed of time for students to read to self, read to others, be read to, practice writing, and practice word work. Melanie and Mrs. Monroe. Melanie was 22 years old. As a student she attended predominantly white, middle class schools. For th ree summers, Melanie worked at a camp for students who had hearing or speech impairments or who were developmentally delayed. Prior to her practicum, Melanie had e xperiences in an inclusive 1st grade classroom. When discussing her beliefs about reading instruction for students w ith disabilities, Melanie thought it was important to teach them to their appropr iate learning style. Te st different methods, then use what works best and gets the best results. Like Colleen, Melanies practicum placement was at Clinton Elementary. Melanie was in an inclusive 2nd grade classroom. In the 2nd grade at Clinton Elementary, the students were placed in leveled reading groups. For reading, Melanie and her cooperating teacher, Mrs. Monroe, worked with the two lowest abil ity reading groups, using Reading Mastery.

PAGE 64

64 Mrs. Monroe, now in her 10th year of teaching, began her te aching career as a Kindergarten teacher and then moved to 2nd grade. She then became a Title 1 teacher, after which time she worked as a consultant for SRA McGraw-Hill for 3 years. She returned to the classroom as a second grade teacher. As the primary read ing instructor for the most fragile 2nd grade readers, Mrs. Monroe used Reading Mastery. Nancy and Mrs. Nell. Nancy, 25 years old, attended a mi xture of suburban and rural schools. Her high school was comprised of a dive rse student body with a large number of ESOL students. Nancy completed UFLI training and tuto red a child with a lear ning disability. All of Nancys PROTEACH placements were in schools with high numbers of students on free/reduced lunch. Her practicum placement was at Rooseve lt Elementary, a school of about 460 students. Approximately 90% of the students at Rooseve lt Elementary were on free/reduced lunch and nearly 100% were in the schools minority rate Nancy believed teachers must find students strengths and build upon them because this will help in working on their weaknesses. She also valued providing students with individual attent ion commenting, it is important to work with these students one-on-one as often as possible. At Roosevelt Elementary, Nancy was placed in an inclusive 3rd grade classroom. For reading instruction, the school followed the Succe ss for All (SFA) model, a model that requires ability grouping across the entire school population. Nancy and he r cooperating teacher, Mrs. Nell, were responsible for teachi ng students who were reading on a 3rd grade 2nd month level. Mrs. Nell was in her 7th year of teaching as a general e ducator at Roosevelt Elementary. Her teaching experiences were in 2nd and 3rd grade. For reading, Mrs. Nell used the Harcourt Trophies reading series as well as materi als from the school wide SFA curriculum.

PAGE 65

65 Tricia and Mrs. Taylor. Tricia was 22 years old and attended a private college preparatory school for grades K-12. This school emphasized Judeo-Christian values and was composed of primarily upper-middle class white st udents. Tricias prior field experiences were in a 1st grade classroom and in a high school class at an alternative school for students with emotional handicaps. When asked about her beliefs about reading inst ruction for students with disabilities, Tricia said, I believe students with disa bilities learn how to read when someone takes a vested interest in their progress. One-on-one and small group learni ng helps, as well as rep eated, explicit, direct instruction and plenty of opportunities to practice. For Tricias practicum, she was placed at Lincoln Elementary School. This schools population consisted of about 45% of students on free/reduced lunch a nd about 42% in the minority rate. Tricia worked with a special educ ator who provided a variety of services to students in grades K-3. Tricia and her cooperatin g teacher, Mrs. Taylor, had a resource room, but they also provided small group instruction in students general education classrooms. Mrs. Taylor was in her 32nd year as a special educator. Sh e had a variety of experiences during her teaching career including being a 1st grade general educator, a self-contained special educator for students with mental handicaps, a hospital homebound teacher, a special education resource teacher, and a special education incl usion teacher. She has taught in both elementary and middle schools as well. For r eading instruction, Mrs. Taylor used both the Harcourt Trophies reading series as well as Reading Mastery. Unified Elementary PROTEACH Program The six pre-service teache rs participated in the Unified Elementary PROTEACH program, which is a joint program between the School of Teaching and Learning and the Department of Special Education. The PROTEACH program was the overarching social context

PAGE 66

66 in which the pre-service teachers prepara tion took place. According to the PROTEACH handbook: The Unified Elementary Proteach program (UEP ) is designed to prepare teachers with a dual emphasis in elementary education and mild disabilities. All graduates also will be prepared to work with students who are English Speakers of Other Languages. The purpose of this program is to prepare t eachers who are capable of: (a) creating and maintaining supportive and productive classroom s for diverse populations and (b) working collaboratively with school personnel, families, and members of the community to develop alternative ways of educating all children, incl uding those who present unique instructional and/or behavioral challenges to teachers. With the exception of a few elective courses, all PROTEACH student s completed uniform programs. Once completing the undergraduate program requirements, pre-service teachers were awarded a Bachelor of Arts in Education (B.A.E.) Then they chose a specialization for their fifth year of Master of Education coursework. All of the participants in th is study chose a special education specialization. Among the courses pre-service teachers took while participating in this study were Intervention for Language and Learning Di sabilities, Mild Disabilities Concentration: Assessment, Curriculum, and Instruction, ESOL Curriculum and Assessment, and Assessment in General and Exceptional Student Education. In addition to coursework, PROTEACH students engaged in a series of field experiences, wh ich took place in the community and local schools. These field components commenced in the fifth semester of undergraduate study and culminated in internships during the graduate year of study. Reading Courses and Instructors Six teacher educators taught courses related to reading instruction to the six pre-service participants. The courses were Emergent Lite racy, Reading in the Intermediate Grades, Intervention for Language and Lear ning Disabilities, and University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) tutoring. Information about e ach course and its instructor(s ) is provided in the following sections.

PAGE 67

67 Emergent literacy. The purpose of the Emergent Liter acy course was to provide preservice teachers with an overvie w of the reading process in early readers. The course objectives included To gain a general understanding of the development of literacy in young children (grades K-3). To identify common terms and conc epts related to literacy and use them comprehensibly in discussions and demonstrations. To describe and implement reading instructi onal practices based on scientifically-based reading research. To identify and define the critical elements of reading instruction in grades K-3 and demonstrate examples of effective instruction for each element. To demonstrate the ability to assess early lit eracy skills and use assessment data to inform instruction (including grouping and planning appropriate lessons). To demonstrate the ability to critically review and use a core reading program. To identify grouping practices a nd their purposes in reading instruction and describe the process for using grouping effectively. To describe a framework or approach fo r identifying struggling readers and providing support for them. To gain an understanding of the link between language and literacy development and the link between language disabilitie s and the developmen t of reading disabilities for culturally and linguistically diverse students. To design an environment that enhances literacy development based on knowledge of research based practices. To identify characteristics of a struggling reader and components of an intervention plan to address the students needs. To achieve these objectives, pre-service teach ers were required to participate in class demonstrations of reading skills, conduct an observation of early reading instruction, participate in Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) training, complete a case study of a struggling reader, and complete a core reading plan description.

PAGE 68

68 Two course instructors, Instructors A and D, taught the Emergent Literacy class to the study participants. Although they ta ught different sections of th e course, these two instructors had the same course objectives and requirement s. Instructor A was a doctoral student studying early childhood education, and this was her 4th time teaching the Emergent Literacy course. Anita and Tricia were enrolled in Instructor As sec tion. Instructor D had her Masters degree and was an adjunct instructor for the univers ity. Instructor D had taught several PROTEACH courses including Teachers and Learners in Inclus ive Schools, Core Teaching Strategies, and the Emergent Literacy Course. Instructor D taught Colleen, Kristy, and Melanie. Reading in the intermediate grades. The purpose of Reading in the Intermediate Grades was to prepare pre-service teachers to deliver expl icit, strategic, literacy instruction to diverse learners in the intermediate grades. Th e course objectives were as follows: Encapsulate the processes of proficient readers Designs activities that develop all PK-12 stude nts critical and creative thinking through effective strategy instruction that fits the complexity and diverse needs of intermediate readers Integrate reading instruct ion across the curriculum Develop a problemsolution model that follows the principles of assessment-guided instruction Create a learning environment that promotes thinking, active learning and relates to students interests and ideas Locate professional development for identified areas of needed to implement a balanced Literacy Framework Instructor B was a Specialist student in the Teaching and Learning Department. This was her first time teaching the Reading in the Intermedia te Grades course and enrolled in her section were Colleen and Anita. Instructor E was a Lect urer in the Teaching a nd Learning Department who specialized in curriculum and instruction, particularly in th e area of reading. Kristy, Nancy,

PAGE 69

69 and Tricia were in Instructor Es course section. Like the Emergent Literacy course, the instructors for the Reading in the Intermediate Grades followed a similar course structure. Interventions for language and learning disabilities. The purpose of this course was to develop pre-service teachers unde rstandings of language developmen t and disorders. The course objectives included: Identify the sequence of expressive a nd receptive language development and the components of language structure. Relate theories of language acquisition and learning, includ ing those of second language learning. Understand the organization of written and s poken English according to the five major components of language Analyze assessments to identify communication difficulties and select appropriate, evidence-based interventions. Select strategies for integrating communica tion instruction into educational settings. The only participant who had taken this class wa s Nancy and her instructor was Instructor F. Instructor F, a doctoral student in the Special Education departme nt, had taught this course more than four times before, in both face to face and online formats. UFLI tutoring. The purpose of the UFLI tutoring pr ogram was to provide pre-service teachers with a tool that would help them understand the in-depth process of learning to read. The program was designed to be used daily with a tutee according to the following components: Gaining Fluency (5-8 Minutes) Measuring Progress (3-4 Minutes) Writing for Reading (10 Minutes) Reading a New Book (10 Minutes) Extending Literacy (2-8 Minutes) Instructor C facilitated all of the UFLI tutori ng training sessions. Instructor C, an Associate Professor in the department of Special Educat ion, specialized in ear ly reading instruction,

PAGE 70

70 particularly for struggling readers, and she wa s the primary developer of the UFLI tutoring program. Field Supervisors Three field supervisors participated in th is study. Each field supervisor had extensive experiences in the field of education. The res ponsibilities of the fiel d supervisors included conducting classroom observations of the pre-se rvice teachers during their practicum placement and conducting pre and post lesson conferences. Th e field supervisors were in an evaluative position, helping the pre-service teachers understand their strengths and wea knesses to ultimately improve their classroom practice. The field s upervisors primary evaluative tool was the Pathwise observation tool. Information about each field supervisor is provided below. Mrs. Grant. Mrs. Grant worked in the field of education for 37 years as an elementary teacher, an assistant principal, and an elementary principal. After retiring from the school system, Mrs. Grant wanted to stay involved in the field of educa tion and contacted the coordinator of the intern ship program about securing a position as a field supervisor. This was Mrs. Grants third semester as a field supervisor. Mrs. Grant supe rvised Anita, Colleen, Melanie, and Tricia. Mrs. Smith. Mrs. Smith has been in the field of education for over 16 years. She taught Kindergarten, 1st, 4th, and 5th grade. Periodically throughout he r teaching career, she left the classroom to run her own business. This was Mrs. Smiths third semester as a field supervisor and she supervised Kristy. Mrs. Baker. Mrs. Baker was a Special Education doc toral student who had a Masters in special education and a Masters in social work. Prior to enrolli ng in the doctoral program, Mrs. Baker had more than six years teaching experien ce with students with emotional handicaps and behavior disorders in all grade levels. The major ity of her teaching experience was at the middle

PAGE 71

71 at high school levels. She also ha d administrative experience as a dean and a principal of an all girls residential facility. This was Mrs. Baker s first semester as a field supervisor, and she supervised Nancy Procedure The purpose of this study was to exam ine special education pre-service teachers appropriation of tools and acquisition of knowledge of reading instruction for students with mild disabilities, primarily focusing on interactions among special educati on pre-service teachers (specifically their beliefs and pr ior experiences), their reading pr eparation, and their enactment of reading instruction. Data colle ction and analysis procedures addressed such a purpose. Data Collection This qualitative study was conducted using videotaped observations, interviews, openended surveys, and artifacts as sources of da ta. Detailed descriptions of data collection procedures are presented in the following sections. Observations. For each pre-service teacher, thre e videotaped observations were conducted. The purpose of the observations was to record the participants reading instruction and classroom practices during their practicum experience. The observations enabled the researcher to see the level (accord ing to Grossman et al.s (1999) fi ve levels of appropriation) to which the pre-service teachers were appropria ting tools for reading instruction, a critical component of the activity theory framework. Th e videotaped classroom observations also enabled the participants to view their teachi ng and reflect on their reading practices during subsequent interview sessions. The observations occurred at roughly the begi nning, middle, and end of the semester. A data collection timeline is provided in Table 33. The observations were scheduled ahead of time and lasted between 30 and 90 minutes depe nding on the length of reading lesson.

PAGE 72

72 During each observation, the researcher took extensive observation fi eld notes on a laptop computer. When completing field notes, the goa l was to focus on the tools, knowledge, and strategies used by pre-service teachers and the le vel to which they were appropriated. These field notes provided rich descriptions of the participants reading inst ructional practices and proved to be helpful in triangulating the data. To help ensure the trustworthiness and credibility of the field notes, an external auditor was asked to view four (or roughly 16 %) of the videotaped observations and complete field notes. The rese archer and the doctoral student compared field notes for the four observations, verifying that both persons observed the same instructional practices. Immediately following each observation, the re searcher rated the pr e-service teachers reading practices using the observation instrument tool that Brownell et al (in press) modified from Baker, Gersten, Haager, Dingle, & Goldenberg (2004). The Reading Instruction in Special Education Observation Instrument (RISE ) consists of 22 items that address the following areas: Instructional Practices, Gene ral Instructional Environmen t, Decoding, Comprehension, Classroom Management and Overall Classroom Pr actice. Observers use a 1-4 Likert scale to evaluate a teachers performance on each of the 22 items. A score of 1 represents Low Quality for an item and a 4 represents High Quality. The purpose of using the RISE in this study was to document the pre-service teachers growth over time, thus serving as a rudimentary indicator of the pre-service teachers enactmen t of reading instruction knowledge. Brownell and her colleagues validated the RISE using four forms of evidence (content validity, response process evidence internal structure validity, and criterion validity). Content validity was established through di scussions informed by research on effective special education and reading instruction and e xperts input on teaching and obs erving in special education

PAGE 73

73 classrooms. For response pro cess evidence, the researchers conducted pilot tests using the instrument. Research members debriefed after th e pilot observations and discussed use of the instrument and the participants performance. Internal struct ure validity of the RISE was established by examining corrected item-total corre lation coefficients for the entire instrument and each of the subscales. Correct ed item-total correlation coefficients ranged from .5 to .8. To establish criterion validity, Brow nell et al. employed hierarchical linear modeling analyses to determine the proportion of variance contribu ted to student reading achievement gains by average overall practice as well as subscale scores on the RI SE. The proportion of variance contributed to gains in oral reading fluency by overall classroom prac tice was .37 for beginning teachers. General instructional environment contributed 48% of the variance, and classroom management contributed 59%. Re liability of the RISE was es tablished by calculating alpha coefficients for the entire scale (.92) and subscales (.88 to .94). To establish inter-rater relia bility, an external auditor who was instrumental in the development of the RISE was recruited and aske d to watch two videotaped (approximately 11%) observations and rate the pre-serv ice teachers. The inter-rater re liability between the external auditor and the researcher was 86%. Inter-rater reliability was calculate d by dividing the number of hits between the external auditor and the re searcher by the total number of items that were rated. A hit was defined as a .5 or less difference between the external auditor and the researcher. For example, if the external auditor rated an item on the RISE as 3.5 and the researcher rated the same item as 3.0, this was considered a hit. Pre-service teacher interviews. For each pre-service teacher, the researcher conducted three interviews (one before any classroom observations, one conducted in conjunction with classroom observations, and one at the end of the data collection phase). The interviews

PAGE 74

74 consisted of semi-structured questions (Appendi x C). The interview protocol were developed based on guiding principles from the activity th eory framework, literat ure review, and pilot study. Each interview lasted be tween 30 and 90 minutes and was tape recorded and later transcribed. The interviews were important data sources under the activity theory framework because they allowed the researcher to unders tand each pre-service teachers individual characteristics as well as their social contexts of learning. It was through interviews that the researcher gained critical insights into potential interactions between th e pre-service teachers and their preparation program. The purpose of the first interview was to elicit the pre-service teachers perceptions concerning their knowledge, coursework, beliefs, a nd prior experiences for teaching reading. In the second interview, particip ants reflected on the sources of knowledge and program experiences they drew from as they enacted thei r practice in reading inst ruction. This interview followed the first classroom observation. During the second interview, the pre-service teachers viewed and reflected on video clips of their t eaching. Specifically, the researcher asked the preservice teachers to describe where they learned about various classroom practices and the purpose for using those practices. The final interv iew focused on the participants experiences in the various activity systems and how these experi ences influenced their knowledge of reading instruction. Additionally, the par ticipants again reflected on video clips from the second and third classroom observations. Teacher educator interviews. The researcher interviewed the participants reading methods instructors one time during the study. In terviewing the course in structors followed the tenets of activity theory in which multiple people make up activity systems and mediate the context for learning. Similar to the pre-service teache rs, the instructors were asked questions

PAGE 75

75 about their courses including the content and learning experiences. These interviews not only served to triangulate the data, but they also assisted the researcher in understanding the types of tools pre-service teachers had expos ure to during their coursework. These interviews were semi-structured (Appendix C) and lasted approximately 60 minutes. Like the pre-service teacher interviews, the teacher educator interviews were tape recorded and transcribed. Similar to the pre-service teacher interviews, the interview protocol was derived from the conceptual framework. In addition, in terview questions revolve d around aspects of the reading course syllabus. Cooperating teacher interviews. One critical activity system for the pre-service teachers in this study was their practicum placement. It was their practicum placement that allowed them to translate their knowledge in an authentic teaching situ ation. A large influence in the practicum placement is the cooperating teacher, thus it was vital that each c ooperating teacher was interviewed at least one time. The goal of interviewing the coope rating teachers was to understand their beliefs and knowledge about reading instruction, their prior teaching experiences, and their perceptions of the pre-service teachers tool appropriation. The cooperating teacher interviews were semi-structured (Appendix C) and lasted approximately 60 minutes. The interviews were tape recorded and transcribed. The interview protocol was derived from the conceptual framework as well as from the researchers observation field notes. The coopera ting teacher interviews occurr ed after the first or second classroom observation but before the third observation. The topics include d in this interview included the cooperating teachers background, cl ass information, reading philosophies, and goals for the pre-service teachers.

PAGE 76

76 Field supervisor interviews. Field supervisors represent an important link between the university setting and the practicum placement, thus they are an integral part of both of these activity systems. It was important, therefore, to include their perspectives in this study. The goal of these interviews was to understand the field supervisors perspectiv es on reading and their perceptions of the pre-service t eachers reading knowledge and enactment of reading instruction. Each field supervisor was interviewed one tim e. These interviews were semi-structured (Appendix C) and lasted approximately 60 minutes The interviews were tape recorded and transcribed. The interview protocol was de rived from the conceptual framework. The cooperating teacher interviews occurred after the first or second classroom observation but before the third observation. Prior experiences and beliefs survey. At the beginning of the study, each pre-service teacher completed a four question open-ended surv ey assessing their prior experiences with K-12 schooling, reading instruction, and st udents with disabilities. The survey is included in Appendix A. This survey also addressed their beliefs a bout proper reading instru ction for students with disabilities. This survey was not only a data source, but as discussed previously, it was also used in the sample selection procedure. Concept map. At the beginning and end of the data collection period, each pre-service teacher completed a concept map about readi ng instruction (Appendix A). The concept map served as an informal assessment of their prio r knowledge for reading in struction and was used as part of the sample selection procedure. This map also documented the factors the pre-service teachers believed were essential to becoming a successful reader. In th e middle of the concept map was reading instruction and the pre-service teachers were asked to incorporate as many concepts about effective reading in struction as they were able.

PAGE 77

77 Artifacts. The researcher collected course syllab i for the participants reading methods courses to serve as data triangu lation mechanism and as a discu ssion piece during the interviews. Pre-service teachers and teacher educators looked at the syllab i and reflected on the learning experiences and objectives of the course. The researcher also examined the participants program plan including their sequence of courses and field experiences. As part of the Unified Elementary PROTEACH program, the plan was uniform for all participants. The program plan helped document the various experiences that pre-service teachers might have dr awn from as they enacted their reading instruction during their practicum placement. The program plan also served as a data source in the description of the PROTEACH program. For this study, it was importa nt to provide a rich description of the participants program, as the program was the overarching context in which their learning took place. Data Analysis The data were analyzed using constructiv ist grounded theory m ethods (Charmaz, 2000; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Grounded theory is a met hod to systematically analyze qualitative data by utilizing explicit and analyt ic procedures (Charmaz, 2000; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Unlike objectivist or positivist paradigms, in constructiv ism, reality is subjective, the product of the observers experiences, biases, and interests (Charmaz, 2006). Constr uctivist grounded theory is based upon the participants experiences that are grounded in the raw data. By grounding the analyses in the data, the researcher was able to develop a theory that de scribed the interactions between special education pre-se rvice teachers and their prepar ation, but more importantly, it facilitated the development of a theory that explai ned the role of the interactions in the enactment of practice. Grounded theory met hods are especially useful wh en studying the microcosm of interactions in particular sett ings and when new theoretical explanations of a phenomenon are

PAGE 78

78 needed (Grbich, 2007). The lack of existing theory to explain the interactions involved in special education pre-service teachers appropriation of conceptual an d practical tools makes grounded theory an ideal method for this study. The purpose of grounded theory is to either ge nerate a theory from empirical data or elaborate on an existing theo ry (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). When grounded theory methods are used to generate a theory, the emerging theory is developed after the raw data are decontextualized, rea ssembled, and reorganized. One method of decontextualization is constant comparative analysis or also known as microanalysis (Charmaz, 2000; Corbin & Holt, 2005; Glaser, 1978). This type of analysis helps th e researcher compare people, incidents, and categories (Charmaz, 2000; Glaser, 1978) to tease apart subtle relationships. When grounded theory methods ar e used to elaborate on an existing theory, researchers modify existing theory as new data are collected (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In this investigation, grounded theory met hods were used to both generate and elaborate on theory. The researcher collected empirical data and generate d a theory explaining th e influences on special education pre-service teachers appr opriation of conceptual and practical tools, but the researcher used activity theory as a guiding framework and modified it to reflect the unique complexities of a special education context. The grounded theory process consists of a three-stage process: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. A comprehensive list of codes is provided in Appendix D. In the first stage, open coding, codes or labels are developed for the data line by line. These codes represent concepts, which are abstract representations of events, objects, and in teractions (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Differentiating instruction, tension between ideal and reality and open to feedback are some open code examples from this study. As concepts accumulate, they are

PAGE 79

79 grouped into more abstract categories. To further define a cat egory, its properties and dimensions are developed. Properties are the characteristic s of a category and dimensions represent a propertys location on a continuum (Strauss & Co rbin, 1998). Theory formulation begins as properties align along various dimensions. In this study, the research er began the grounded theory process by open coding the interview transc ripts and observation field notes line by line. Whenever possible, the researcher incorporated in vivo codes which are the participants exact words. The researcher completed memoing for sec ondary data sources such as artifacts, and used these memos as support for the derived codes an d categories. During the various coding stages, the researcher recorded reflec tions and questions as memos in a study reflection log (Appendix E). Finally, the researcher secured the help of an external auditor who open coded a random selection of four interview transcripts (or 13%) to verify the open codes and emerging axial codes. In general, the external auditors codes matched those of the researchers. Although there were minor variations in the codes, these di fferences did not seem to change the overall emerging themes or outcomes. For example, the researcher coded one data chunk as congruence between university coursework while the external auditor coded the same chunk overlap in university courses In instances where data chunks were coded differently, the researcher and external auditor met to discuss the differen ces and bring to light any hidden biases. In the second stage, axial coding, the data are reassembled by making connections between categories and subcategories (Str auss & Corbin, 1998). In essence, a category that emerged in the open coding stage is linked to all its subcategories (Grbich, 2007). To reassemble the data, the analyst searches for answers to questions such as why, how, where and when (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Answering these types of questions facilitates the development of relationships. For instance, asking when and why pre-service teachers are open to feedback helped bring forth

PAGE 80

80 relationships between pre-service teachers, their field supervisors, and their cooperating teachers. Also helpful is the use of a paradigm which is an organizational scheme consisting of conditions, actions, and consequences (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Conditions are the circumstances under which an experience occurs. Actions are individuals responses to issues that arise under those conditions, and consequences are the outcomes of individuals actions (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Further constant comparisons should be made to verify, elaborate, a nd validate the emerging hypotheses that may result from the use of a para digm. Such constant comparison can strengthen the explanatory power of the emerging theory. The outcome of the final stage, selective codi ng, is formal theory development. Selecting a central category that is consistent across the data to represent the predominant research theme refines the theory. In this study, the cen tral category or core concept was opportunities to appropriate knowledge in practice A tool to help elucidate the relationships between the core category and the other categories is a cognitive diagram (Corbi n & Holt, 2005). To increase the credibility of the grand theory, analysts look for negative cases, or out liers, and attempt to explain these negative cases as va riations of the formal theory. Verification In qualita tive research, establishing credibility and trustworthiness enhances validity. The researcher established credibility and trustw orthiness through triangulation, member checking, rich descriptions, peer debrie fing, reflective journaling, and the use of external auditors. The researcher triangulated the data by collecting mu ltiple pieces of evidence (interview, observation, and artifact data). Furthermore, the data were triangulated from the interview data from the various study participants (pre-service teachers, cooperating teachers, field supervisors, and teacher educators). Throughout the interview pr ocess the researcher engaged in member checking presenting the initial find ings and impressions to the part icipants and asking for their

PAGE 81

81 feedback on the emerging themes about their appr opriation of conceptual and practical tools and the influence of various experien ces on their enactment of readi ng instruction. Through in-depth examination of the data, rich descriptions of th e participants, contexts, and interactions were developed. The researcher also employed peer-debriefing measures by conferring regularly with her committee chair. Finally, the researcher secure d a series of external auditors who were not affiliated with the study. These external auditors verified the researchers field notes, open codes and axial codes, and RISE scores. Study Limitations Although a variety of techniques were employed to promote credibility and trustworthiness, there are still some limitations to this study. The small sample size limits the generalizability of these findings, thus it would be inappropriate to assume these findings apply to all special education pre-se rvice teachers and all preparation programs. Also, in qualitative research, it is often difficult for researchers to separate themselves from their personal experiences and biases. By maintaining a reflec tive journal throughout th e study and engaging in peer-debriefing the researcher aimed to br ing any personal biases to the forefront. Researcher Subjectivity When e mploying qualitative methods, it is importa nt to acknowledge that the researcher is an integral part of the data collection and anal ysis (Patton, 2002). A rese archers subjectivities are inseparable from the data, and thus must be acknowledged. In fact, the researcher has an obligation to examine the intersection of the study and the self. My formal training as an educator began when I was admitted to an accelerated Masters program in elementary education. After securing my first teaching posit ion as a third grade general educator in an inclus ive classroom, I realized that despite completing a graduate program, I was ill-prepared to teach children ho w to read. The Masters program included only

PAGE 82

82 two reading methods courses, and neither was designed to address th e specific literacy needs of struggling readers. I found teaching children to read, especially struggling readers and students with disabilities, was the hardest task I had ev er faced. Some of thes e students had already rejected school because of their constant strugg les with learning to rea d, and as their teacher I felt helpless as to how best to teach them. As time past, I got better at teaching reading, but I still did not know how to help every student. I knew that there was so much more that I needed to learn about teaching, and after having the opportunity to be a mentor teacher, I became interested in he lping other teachers. I know that many of my students did not get the in struction that they ne eded because I was not knowledgeable enough as a teacher. I feel in many wa ys that I did my first class of students an injustice. These feelings and beliefs have greatl y shaped how I have approached my research in my doctoral program. My focus is on reading beca use I feel that this is the area in which young children need the most support. I also focus on pr e-service teachers. I want prospective teachers to enter their classrooms more prepared than was my experience. I do not want them to look back on their teaching careers and have regrets that they did no t serve their students well. I believe that by better preparing teachers, studen ts will be the ones who reap the benefits. My experiences as a student and a teacher ha ve influenced how I developed this study on pre-service teacher knowledge for reading instruction. I want my research to help inform teacher preparation programs so that teachers and st udents experience success. From my prior experiences as a researcher, te acher educator, and former clas sroom teacher, I am approaching this investigation with several beliefs about teacher education a nd reading instruction. I believe that teacher education can make a differen ce in beginning teacher quality, if the teacher education program is designed to offer prospec tive teachers extensive opportunities to acquire

PAGE 83

83 pedagogical content knowledge and apply it in authentic teaching situations. Teachers beliefs, knowledge, and experiences act as filters for thei r practice, thus teacher educators should pay particular attention to the incoming beliefs a nd prior experiences of pre-service teachers. Teachers who draw from extensive knowledge ab out students and effective teaching practices are better equipped to increase student achievement. Reading in struction for students with disabilities is best when it occu rs in small, flexible groups, is systematic and explicit, and addresses the needs of individual students. Presentation of Findings Included in this dissertation are well-doc umented, comprehensive descriptions of the influences on special education pre-service teachers acquisition of reading instruction knowledge and explanations for how these infl uences interplay to promote or hinder the enactment of practice. The findings are presente d in Chapters 4 and 5. Chapter 4 describes each pre-service teachers appropriation of tools and the specific ac tivity systems under which this appropriation occurred. To illuminate the ways in which the pre-service t eachers learning occurs and how this learning is translat ed into classroom practice, inte rview excerpts and examples of classroom practice are included in chapter 4. Chapter 5 provides a grounded theory for how various influences interact as special education pre-service teac hers appropriate conceptual and practical tools for reading instruction for students with mild disabilities.

PAGE 84

84 Table 3-1. Pre-service teacher information PT Age CT School FS Reading course Instructor Anita 22 Mrs. Adams Washington Elem. Mrs. Grant Emergent Lit. Instructor A Intermediate Rdg Instructor B UFLI training Instructor C Colleen 22 Mrs. Carter Clinton Elem. Mrs. Grant Emergent Lit. Instructor D Intermediate Rdg Instructor B UFLI training Instructor C Kristy 27 Mrs. Kirk Kennedy Elem. Mrs. Smith Emergent Lit. Instructor D Intermediate Rdg Instructor E UFLI training Instructor C Melanie 22 Mrs. Monroe Clinton Elem. Mrs. Grant Emergent Lit. Instructor D Intermediate Rdg --* UFLI training Instructor C Nancy 25 Mrs. Nell Roosevelt Elem. Mrs. Baker Intermediate Rdg Instructor E Lang. & Intervention Instructor F Tricia 22 Mrs. Taylor Lincoln Elem. Mr s. Grant Emergent Lit. Instructor A Intermediate Rdg. Instructor E UFLI training Instructor C This course instructor was unava ilable to participate in the study. Note. PT: Pre-service Teacher, CT: Coope rating Teacher, FS: Field Supervisor

PAGE 85

85Table 3-2. Practicum placements Preservice teacher Placement School School size Free/reduced lunch rate Minority rate Cooperating teacher Years expTeaching duties Anita 3rd grade inclusive Washington Elem. 670 36.60%43.40% Mrs. Adams 12 3rd grade general educator Colleen K-1 inclusive/ pull out Clinton Elem. 800 33.30%45.70% Mrs. Carter 14 K-1 ESE teacher Melanie 2nd grade inclusive pull out Clinton Elem. 800 33.30%45.70% Mrs. Monroe 10 2nd grade general educator Kristy Multi-grade K-2 inclusiveKennedy Elem. 460 45.80%46.10% Mrs. Kirk 35 K-2 general educator Nancy 3rd grade inclusive Roosevelt Elem. 468 87.80%98.40% Mrs. Nell 7 3rd grade general educator Tricia K-3 resource Lincoln Elem. 639 44.80%42.80% Mrs. Taylor 32 K-2 ESE teacher

PAGE 86

86 Table 3-3. Data collection timeline Week in school year Data collection August (Weeks 3 and 4) Study presentation and participant recruitment Informed consents provided Prior Experiences Survey administered Phelps & Schilling (2004) survey collected Pre-concept maps collected September (weeks 2 and 3) Pre-serv ice teacher interviews #1 conducted September (week 4) & October (weeks 1-2) Observations #1 conducted October (weeks 2-4) Pre-servi ce teacher interviews #2 conducted October (weeks 1-5) Reading course instructor interviews conducted Course syllabi collected October (week 2) Field Supe rvisor interviews conducted October (week 2) PROTEACH program plan collected October (weeks 1-5) and November (week 2) Cooperating Teacher interviews conducted October (weeks 3-5) and November (weeks 2-3) Observations #2 conducted October (week 4) and November (weeks 2-5) Observations #3 conducted November (week 5) and December (weeks 2-3) Pre-service teacher interviews #3 conducted Post-concept maps collected Member checking

PAGE 87

87 CHAPTER 4 PRE-SERVICE TEACHER ACTIVITY SYSTEMS The purpose of this chapter is to describe the activity systems that mediated six special education pre-service teachers appropriation of conceptual an d practical tools for teaching reading, as well as explain how these activity systems operated to influence the pre-service teachers beliefs and practices. Evidence of influen ces of the individual and influences of social contexts on pre-service teacher learning was coll ected through interview and artifact data and evidence of appropriation of tools was collected through videotapes of observations, observation field notes, and scores on the R eading Instruction in Special E ducation (RISE). During a series of three interviews, the participants reflected on their prior e xperiences and beliefs concerning reading instruction for students w ith disabilities and st ruggling readers. Additionally, participants answered questions about the influences they drew on as they appropriated tools for reading instruction. Pre and post concept maps served as additional evidence of the participants knowledge about reading instruct ion. The video taped observations and observation field notes documented the pre-service teachers instructi onal practices. Interview data coupled with observation data provided insights into the levels to which the pre-service teachers appropriated conceptual and practical tool s about reading instruction. Table 4-1 depicts the selec tive and axial codes for this grounded theory study. The selective codes represent shared influences, while the axial code s represent the variations of these influences across participants, thus the selective codes were the same across the six participants, but the axial codes varied. The firs t column of Table 4-1 illustrates the selective codes, followed by columns documenting the axial c odes specific to each pre-service teacher. In parentheses, each axial code is classified under one of three activity systems (individual, university, or practicum). As indicated by the columns in Table 4-1, participants were influenced

PAGE 88

88 either positively or negatively by the various activity systems. For example, for one participant, Colleen, characteristics of her practicum and her UFLI training were the foremost influences on her appropriation of conceptual and practical tools. For An ita, her prior e xperiences and coursework were the predominant influences on her beliefs and tool appropriation. Nancy was an example of how some influences work to have a negative effect. Nancys personal attributes and challenging practicum experience stood as barriers to her successful enactment of reading tools in the classroom. Throughout this chapter, an extensive discussion of the infl uences on all six of the preservice teachers appropriation of tools as indicated by Table 4-1 will be presented. Rich, thick descriptions of (a) individual in fluences, such as prior experien ces and personal attributes, (b) influences of social contexts, including practic um placements and university influences, and (c) evidence of appropriation of tools for each preservice teacher are presented in the following sections, with excerpts from interview and obser vation field note data. All participants are identified using pseudonyms. Anita Anita entered her practicum placement with extensive and varied prior schooling experiences as well as a developed sense of a personal teaching style. She also relied on her university coursework to guide her beliefs and teaching practices. As a result, Anitas beliefs about how tools should be appropriated were influenced by he r individual experiences, ideas, and coursework. In the end, however, Anitas lack of opportunities to situate her knowledge of special education and beginning read ing instruction in her practicum left her feeling ill-prepared to teach struggling readers and studen ts with disabilities how to read.

PAGE 89

89 Influence of the Individual Prior experiences. Anitas m other was a teacher and consequently, while growing up, Anita spent a great deal of time in her mothe rs classroom. Anitas mother was not a special educator, but she did have special education stud ents included in her classroom; thus, Anita had years of experience observing stud ents with disabilities being included in general education classrooms. These prior experiences played a la rge role in Anitas beliefs about how students with disabilities should be included in general education classrooms, as well as her knowledge of appropriate instruction for student s with disabilities. As she reflected on her mothers influence, Anita said, its just so interesting to see how her practices and working with those children and being able to reach some of them at some poi nt in time always had an effect on me (9.14.07). Her mothers effect translated into an intrinsi c motivation to help students with disabilities succeed. Although Anita was not held accountable for the progress of students with disabilities in her practicum, she consistently focused on mee ting their instructional n eeds, as well as those of struggling readers. Anitas concern for students with disabilities was exemplified when she expressed discouragement because a special edu cation student named Keith, is such a hard worker, he tries so hard, but there are no real accommodations in place for him. Evidence of the influence of Anitas prior experiences in her mothers classroom was found on her pre-concept map, as she included id eas about differentiated instruction, ability grouping, and the need for students to receive direct instruction a nd small group practice. Personal attributes and concerns. Anita described herself as very organized and very systematic. These attributes served her well in some regards because her cooperating teacher, Mrs. Adams, praised her wonderful lesson plan s that clearly indicate d a large amount of planning. Being systematic and organized, however also got in Anitas way. In one instance, Anita planned to ask students comprehension questions in a guide d reading group. After

PAGE 90

90 spending an extensive period of time asking que stions, the students became less engaged resulting in off task behavior. Instead of changing the activity when students became disengaged, Anita continued with the pre-planned activity of asking comprehensi on questions until the students misbehavior escalated and the lesson wa s disrupted completely. Anitas rigid adherence to her pre-existing lesson structure made it difficult for her to adapt to changes as they occurred in the classroom. Influence of Social Contexts Practicu m placement. Anitas practicum placement was in a third grade inclusive classroom and her cooperating teacher, Mrs. Adams, was teaching third grade for the first time. Although there were students with disabilities in the classroom, Anita felt that she was not learning how to address their reading needs prop erly. There are four possible explanations for Anitas concerns about her ability to teach struggling readers based on her practicum experience, each of which is detailed below. First, Anita never observed a special educator providing special educat ion services to the students with disabilities, nor did she observe many classroom accommodations being made for those students as indicated above in her comm ents about Keith. In describing the classroom instruction Anita observed, the ac tual reading instruction was not as explicit as I feel it should have been (12.11.07). After watching many students with disabilities stru ggle from a lack of explicit instruction, Anitas beliefs about the need for systematic, explic it instruction were only strengthened. Second, for reading, the third grade teachers divided students into one of two groups, above grade level and at or be low grade level. Anita and Mrs. Adams were responsible for teaching reading to the students who were at or below grade level. Although responsible for students who were reading below a 3rd grade level, Anita indicated that reading instruction in the

PAGE 91

91 classroom focused on grammar, vocabulary, an d comprehension, with little attention to phonemic awareness, phonics, or fluency. Furtherm ore, Anita indicated that instruction she observed was very teacher-oriented, focused on passing the FCAT, [and filled with] silent seatwork (10.16.07). The researchers classroo m observations confirme d Anitas comments. During the researchers three classroom observations students spent the majority of their reading time on comprehension and vocabul ary activities, often completi ng worksheets independently at their desks. Moreover, the vocabulary and compre hension instruction was not targeted towards struggling readers. Observation data indicat ed small group instruction in vocabulary and comprehension was uniform across students regardle ss of their individual needs. Thus, Anita did not have much opportunity to pract ice delivering intense, targeted instruction gauged at meeting students individual needs in reading. Anita expressed a lack of opportun ity to apply what she had learned about struggling reader s and students with disabilities thus leading to a lack of confidence to help such students. Third, Anita was not afforded much freedom in her planning for in struction. When Anita tried to bring in ideas from her Emergent Litera cy course about using re ad-a-louds in conjunction with pre-reading strategies, she was met with resistance from the students who were not accustomed to such instruction. Anita said, the students think I am a bit crazy when I tell them to go through and look at the pictures (10.16.07). The result was that Anita decided not to interfere with Mrs. Adams pre-established t eaching objectives, documented by her comments, I dont have much lee-way with planning what I wa nt to do with a lesson. I guess I dont want to interfere with [Mrs. Adams] teaching, so I just go along with the things she needs me to do. Finally, Mrs. Adams stated, I have essentia lly been a fourth grade teacher and I even started this year as a fourth grade teacher, and then we didnt have enough classes for fourth

PAGE 92

92 grade, so I got booted down to third (10.26.07). Mrs. Adams went on to talk about how she was more comfortable teaching writing than teaching reading, thus Anita did not have a cooperating teacher who was herself comforta ble with teaching children how to read, especially those students for whom learning to read is challenging. In essence, Mrs. Adams interview statements confirmed Anitas lack of opportunity to a pply her knowledge about teaching reading to struggling students. University influence. Anita left her practicum feeling unprepared to teach reading to students with disabilities despite having comple ted university coursework that she believed helped her understand how to provide effective reading instruction. For example, she felt the Emergent Literacy course provided especia lly meaningful experiences in her reading coursework. She learned about the five component s of reading and how to assess students using DIBELS. Anita appreciated how learning about the five areas of reading and learning about reading assessments gave her a deeper understanding for the read ing process and how it plays out in the classroom (9.14.07). However, she thought that the university provided an ideal model of teaching that was sometimes incongruent with classroom practice. Anita talked about it in terms of a gap in what weve learned shoul d be good [instruction] a nd what weve seen [in classrooms] (9.14.07). This gap was problematic for Anita because she rarely saw the practices from her coursework applied in classroom settings; thus, it made understanding and adopting these practices more difficult. Although Anita perceived a gap between the university and classroom, she thought her field supervisor, Mrs. Grant, he lped bridge the gap. Anita appreciated Mrs. Grants role in helping her reflect on her teaching. Anita said, t he feedback is usually very helpful because [field supervisors] are objectiv e (10.16.07). Anita said in some instances, she changed how she

PAGE 93

93 taught because of the feedback provided by Mrs. Grant. For example, one suggestion Mrs. Grant offered was to incorporate more wait time when questioning students. One time, however, Anita, rejected Mrs. Grants feedback. Anita described I am very systematic and Mrs. Grant [suggested] switching things up, but it makes me nervous when I have to switch things up. I guess it is just a teaching style, but I am very systematic in that we are going to do this first and then this, so [Mrs. Grants advice] is something that I found hard to take in. I am not going to do that. I kind of discarded that I guess (10.16.07). Anita was not willing to change her personal teaching style because of the discomfort it created. Appropriation of Tools The influence of her mothers teaching pract ices and her faith in university coursework caused Anita to be quite critical of the practices she observed in her prac ticum both in terms of reading instruction and in terms of the instruction provided to st udents with disabilities. From Anitas standpoint, the role of he r individual prior experiences and the role of coursework were the chief mediators of her a ppropriation of tools. With little guidance from her cooperating teacher regarding reading instruction or instruction for students with disabilities, data from the RISE indicated that Anita improved in her overa ll classroom practice, but only by a half of a point, going from a score of 2 to a 2.5 over the course of the semester. Anitas biggest obstacle to instruction wa s her pacing and classroom management, a concern confirmed by her initial sc ore in this area on the RISE (a score of 1.5) and by comments made by Anita, herself, and by Mrs. Adams. Afte r watching a videotape of her instruction, Anita reflected on what she would like to improve in her teaching stating, Time management. If someone is answering a question, I get too drawn in to that question and I get off from what we are actually doing (10.16.07). Anita thought many of her classroom management problems stemmed from her limited time in practicum. Anita explained

PAGE 94

94 I would be trying to get back into teaching, so it would be pay atten tion to me, trying to get students to zone into me when I was there because I wa snt there for very long each day. We are there for 4 hour s 3 days a week (12.11.07). Anitas reflections were confir med by Mrs. Adams who stated My biggest goal for her, is time management She has wonderful, wonderful plans but she gets too deep into one part of the lesson and it will take far longer than she ever intended for it to take. If too much time is spent on it then you can start loosi ng the kids attention (10.26.07). Going further, Mrs. Adams talked about th e difficulties interns have with classroom management stating I think the classroom management really come s from both a combination of the fact that the intern is not used to having to deal w ith classroom management issues, and also the fact that its not their class. I think sometimes [interns] are kind of timid about getting onto a child for misbehavior because its not thei r class and they dont want to do something wrong (10.26.07). Anitas lowest scores on the RISE were on items focusing on providing continuous and intensive instruction and maintaining student in terest and engagement. For example, in one guided reading lesson, Anita and the students were reading about the gold rush and got into an involved discussion about gold that lasted several minutes, after which Anita had difficulty regaining the students attention. Anitas difficulties could, in part be explained by her rigidity and her difficulty managing unexpected events du ring instruction. This is an example of how individual attributes mediate tool use. During classroom observations, Anita did not teach phonemic awareness, word study, or fluency, mostly because she did not have the oppor tunity, thus she did not receive any scores on the RISE for these areas. In comprehension instruction she went from a 2 to a 3 because of her multiple opportunities to apply her comprehensio n knowledge. For two of the three observations, Anita completed guided reading lessons with a small group of students, focusing predominantly on comprehension. In terms of tool appropria tion, there is evidence Anita appropriated

PAGE 95

95 conceptual underpinnings of guided reading a nd the use of questioning. She was observed posing comprehension questions, both lower order and hi gher order having students take turns reading, and using vocabulary and comprehension activities with the text. When talking about guided reading, Anita talked about the importance of sm all groups and using guided reading to work on skills for which students might need additional practice. Thus Anita, knew the meaning of the term guided reading, she knew the practices that support it, as well as the rationale for its use. For the third observation, Anita did a whole group comprehension lesson in which she worked with the students on seque ncing. For part of this lesson, An ita had the students work in cooperative groups and she attributed knowledge of this practice to her TESOL class. The culminating activity was for the students to put a series of events in proper sequence. Anita commented that though she had learned about assessm ent from her three courses in it, it was not until she went to grade the students sequencing a ssignment that she realized she needed to put a lot more thought into the gr ade, like making a rubric for it and being more objective (12.11.07). From her coursework, Anita had appropriated some ideas about assessment but applying her knowledge to the classroom helped her think more deeply about assessment and how it should be done. Applying her reading knowledge during practicum helped Anita understand assessment from a practical and conceptu al standpoint, thus helping her reach higher levels of appropriation. Interplay of Influences Anita learned beginning reading practices in he r Em ergent Literacy course, but without the opportunity to enact this knowledge by teaching struggling readers, Anita was uncertain of her ability. In the final interview, Anita mused about her ability to teach struggling readers and said, I think I would be able to but I havent seen myse lf be able to [teach struggling readers] yet, so I cant say yes I know I can do that (12.11.07). Similarly, Anita finished the semester feeling only

PAGE 96

96 somewhat confident in her ability to teach student s with disabilities. In the absence of extensive opportunities to work with students with disabi lities, Anita relied on her knowledge from her coursework and her observations of her mothers inclusive classroom, stating, I may not have had that experience but with what I know, I think I can adapt and te ach those kids, so that is my only consolation (12.11.07). Colleen Colleen en tered the PROTEACH program with a well-defined goal of being a special educator, a goal that resulted from her prior e xperiences with a sibli ng with a disability. Although Colleen talked about various concepts sh e learned from her unive rsity coursework, this knowledge was not solidified and clear until Colleen was able to see it or use it in a classroom setting. For Colleen, the most important unive rsity experience was the UFLI training she received. At the end of the semester, Colleens knowledge about beginn ing reading instruction and reading instruction for strugg ling readers had greatly increased due to her placement with a Kindergarten/first grade special educator and the opportunity to apply her UFLI training. Influence of the Individual Prior experiences. Colleen had a brother who was 11 years younger and who was diagnosed w ith Autism at an early age. Watc hing him grow up was a large influence on Colleens desire to be a teacher and her belief s about teacher quality and special education. She explained Hes gone through so many years of ups and dow ns and it is really so dependent on the teacher because there were some years that were so wasted because of low expectations or just letting him get away with whatever he wanted (9.18.07). Her observations of her brothe rs experiences fueled her desire to become a special educator.

PAGE 97

97 The schools Colleen attended ut ilized self-contained models thus Colleen had little interaction with students with disabilities duri ng her own K-12 education. Colleen recalled, I dont think I remember who the ESE teachers were or even their names or saw the kids. Some kids were special ed the whole way through a nd you just didnt see them that much (9.18.07). Coming into the PROTEACH program, however, Colleen had well-established beliefs about the need for individualized instruction for students with disabilities and the diverse nature of classrooms, due to her experiences with her brother, as indicated in the first interview when she talked about how different kids in your class are going to be and how individualized everything needs to be [to meet their needs] (9.18.07). Colleen had little memory of learning to read stating, I dont even remember learning to read, I dont remember anything about it, I don t even remember learning letters (12.5.07). Coming into the PROTEACH program, Colleen t hought learning to read was just a natural process that everyone learns, it was so mething that just happened (12.5.07). Personal attributes and concerns. Colleens personal attributes and concerns may have influenced her learning. Her interview data indica ted Colleen took initiati ve to learn more. The curriculum Colleens practicum teacher adopted u tilized short sight word books. After using the books for a few lessons, Colleen realized sh e did not know the books purpose. Instead of continuing to feel confused and wait for her coop erating teacher to notice, Colleen took initiative by asking how she was supposed to use the books. Additionally, the evidence suggest ed that one of Colleens concerns was to be liked by her students. When describing a memorable day, Colleen talked about the day her tutoring student ran up to her and gave her a hug. She was happy that he likes me (12.5.07). Moreover, Colleen said, you build such a relations hip with students, they are like your little brothers (12.5.07).

PAGE 98

98 Observation data from her first lesson confirmed Co lleens desire to be li ked by students. Several times throughout the lesson, instead of establishi ng herself as an aut hority figure and setting clear expectations, Colleen took an informal tone with students, giggling at their misbehavior rather than correcting it. Influence of Social Contexts Practicu m placement. Colleens practicum placement was with Mrs. Carter, a special educator with 14 years of experience, who had supervised many interns. Mrs. Carter taught Kindergarteners and first graders using a combination of service deliver y models including pushin, pull-out, and co-teaching. All of the students Colleen and Mrs. Carter worked with were struggling with reading or math. According to Mrs. Cater the students sh e worked with are the ones that need that extra little oomph (10.23.07). Mr s. Carters direct involvement in providing instruction for students had a positive impact on Colleen. Before her practicum, Colleen only entertained the idea of being a self-contained te acher, because in a prior field experience she observed a special education resource teacher who did not have much responsibility or interaction with students. Seei ng Mrs. Carters success as a special educator who provided students with disabilities instruction in a vari ety of ways, however, helped Colleen see that models besides self-contained coul d be good for students. Colleen said I really wasnt about a push in or pull out model. Thats not what I wanted to doBut in Mrs. Carters case, she actually runs her ow n center and has the same kids everyday, so it is more consistent than I thought it would be. And the kids are so excited about it (9.18.07). Colleens practicum with its variety of se rvice delivery models had both benefits and drawbacks. On the positive side, Colleen had multiple sources of knowledge including Mrs. Carter, general educators, and pa raprofessionals. The large number of adults with whom Colleen worked helped her learn a variety of accommodati ons. For example, when asked about her use of

PAGE 99

99 highlighters to help a student with Autism, Co lleen credited the parapr ofessional with showing her the strategy. Colleens use of trackers to help students keep their place on a page came from the general educators supplies. On the negative side, however, Colleen l acked participation in lesson planning and instructional decision-making. According to Colleen: There was a classroom teacher and an intern and an assistant and us and so it was like five teachers in one room which was great for grouping but not for instructional decisions. I did not have any voice in reading. In reading I feel like the intern was a little controlling herself. I did not come across any personal conflict but I did not try to take control of anything, so I guess the planning, I did not have much exposure to (12.5.07). These restrictions were ec hoed by Mrs. Carter who said Since we do so many different things, in read ing, its pretty much decided for Colleen and we tell her what is going on. Because I co-tea ch, we [the teachers] actually do the planning together and then we tell Colleen whats bei ng done so she just ca rries that out (10.23.07). Although Colleen was not involved in lesson pl anning, Mrs. Carter did have a plan for involving Colleen in successful teaching opportunities. Mrs. Carter attempted to help Colleen ease into the classroom gently, so that she w ould not drown in classroom management issues initially. According to Mrs. Carter: Behavior management is always the hardes t as beginning teachers Its really being comfortable enough with your cu rriculum that you can focus on the behavior management, and it is the behavior management that shoul d come first. But most people focus on the curriculum and they forget the behavi or management part of it (10.23.07). As a result, she had a clear plan for Colleens involvement in the classroom. Mrs. Carter had Colleen implement Reading Mastery lessons because [Reading Mastery] is very straight forward so all [pre-service teachers] have to focus on is the behavior management (10.23.07). Mrs. Carter also talked about giving Colleen explicit guidance on working with small groups of students. Mrs. Carter stated [Colleen and I] have talked about managing behaviors of large and small groups, how it is different. It seems like when you do a small group, you tend to back off a little and thats a mistake some people make because t hose kids can get just as hyper as a large group. They can get away from you real fa st. So weve talked about setting clear

PAGE 100

100 expectations and setting those rules and consequences. And th at eliminates that busyness and the wandering that always leads into trouble (10.23.07). Observations of Colleen supported Mrs. Cart ers views and mentoring. Colleens RISE score on classroom management rose from a 1.5 to a 3 by the end of the semester. University influence. Colleen had mixed feelings about the role of her university coursework. She identified a mismatch between what she was learning from the university and what she observed in her various placements. She commented, what we learn is new and it is researched and up and coming and not necessarily in the schools. We were learning one thing and [schools are] not doing that, for example, cooperative grouping (12.5.07). Colleen also indicated that the conflicting messages she received from various university course instructors about the need for direct instru ction did little to help her fo rmulate her ideas about how to approach teaching. She stated, I am kind of torn because I feel li ke in everything we learn there are two things, direct explicit instruction and then theres dont do that, do this, and I am [confused] which is it (12.5.07)? In reflecting on those experiences that were most influential, Colleen did discuss one university requirement, her UFLI training. According to Colleen: UFLI was actually really big and we did not realize how much it helped us. We were [upset] we were tutoring for free, but I realize now that really helped because it is that oneon-one and you see how kids read. It was real ly helpful because I planned, I thought oh they really need to do this and I would take a game and not do the game but do something with the cards of the game. I was thinking more creatively (12.5.07). For Colleen, the UFLI tutoring provided an opportunity for her to plan instruction, something that she felt was lacking in her prac ticum. In fact, Instructor C who trained the preservice teachers in UFLI felt that one of the bene fits of UFLI was that there is a lot of tutor decision-making throughout (10.30.07). The UFLI tuto ring also gave Colleen more insight into the reading process beca use it did show you what goes on in [kids] heads, how they attack

PAGE 101

101 words and I had never seen kids do that, so it de finitely made it more real, especially how they progressed (12.5.07). Appropriation of Tools For Colleen, the combination of her UFLI tutoring knowledge, Reading Mastery, and the basal reading series provided Colleen with stru cture and guidance, thus her overall classroom rating and her scores on phonemic awareness and word study all increased ove r the course of the semester, with her final word study score reaching a 3.5. As discussed earlier, guidance from Colleens knowledgeable cooperating teacher he lped Colleens classroom management rating increase 1.5 points over the course of the semest er. Of primary importance to Colleen was the influence of her practicum placement, because it helped her appropriate tools and knowledge related to beginning reading inst ruction, as well as classroom ma nagement strategies, all of which is described below. From observing Mrs. Carter and a general education teacher, Colleen adopted the use of positive reinforcement using extrinsic rewards such as Skittles and pretzels. For Colleen, the positive reinforcement helps and is a wonderful thing (10.11.07). Observation data confirms her use of positive reinforcement and its powerful effect on her classroom management. In one lesson, Colleen rewarded four students who ha d followed directions by giving them each a Skittle. Upon seeing that some students had recei ved a reward, a fifth student, John, who had crawled under his chair, immediately returned to the table and got back on task. After watching this video clip, Colleen spoke about how she relied on using positive reinforcers with the students because the reinforcers en couraged students to be good. For Colleen, the most important influence in her appropriation of tools about reading instruction was the opport unity to situate them in practice. Without this opportunity, Colleen had difficulty seeing the need for various tools pres ented in her coursework. She described learning

PAGE 102

102 about phonemes and phonemic awareness in her Emerge nt Literacy course and not being able to stand it. When I was learning it I was thinking oh my God, I know how to say a /b/ (9.18.07)! But Colleen went on to describe how being in he r practicum helped her understand the need for knowledge such as phonics and phonemic awarene ss, stating, that stuff took me a while to realize that it was helpful (10.11.07). She desc ribed how during one less on she realized she did not really know the correct way to produce th e sound /b/ even though during her coursework she thought learning the letter sounds was useless. In another lesson, Colleen had students use mirro rs to observe the shape their mouths took when producing various letter sounds. When asked about this tool, Colleen said, I remember we talked about it in Emergent Literacy. I think it was one of those things we learned before we were in the [practicum] classroom so I neve r really thought about it that much (10.11.07). Colleen, however, chose to implement the mirror s after observing the gene ral educator use them with the students. It is unclear whether Colle en eventually would have enacted her knowledge about using mirrors if she had not seen it mode led during her practicum. Instructor D who taught Colleens Emergent Literacy course confirmed Colleens statements when she said, I dont think [pre-service teachers] reali ze the benefit of the course until they walk away from it. They grumble through it (10.8.07). At the end of her practicum, Colleens knowle dge of beginning reading had increased. Her pre-concept map included only six broad terms like predicting and phonics, but her post concept map was much more detailed with 28 ideas, incl uding the five major components of reading, as well as their meanings and ways to teach them. Interplay of Influences Colleens final statem ents confirmed the powerful role her practicum played in her learning. Colleens aspirations to be a special ed ucator coupled with a po sitive special education

PAGE 103

103 practicum experience strengthened he r desire for helping students with disabilities as well as her confidence in delivering reading instruction.W hen asked about her confidence in teaching reading, especially for struggli ng readers, Colleen replied, bef ore this semester I was like I dont want to do it, so when I got this semester, I was a little intimidated but now I definitely feel a lot more confident and I feel like as much as th e coursework prepares you for it, it is definitely seeing it that makes it real. Obvi ously experience is the best te acher (12.5.07). Mrs. Carter had similar thoughts stating, its eas y to learn the stuff at college but you know, I feel for those teachers who dont do their 5th year and their intern ship and stuff like that, I dont know how you could do it, you have to have that internship and you have to have those placements. That is really where you learn to teach I think (10.23.07). Kristy Throughout the study, Kristy encountered severa l challenges as she tried to integrate her personal teaching philosophy with ideas from her coursework and her practicum. She struggled to reconcile her personal ideolo gies, which supported holistic read ing instruction and her course instructors ideologies about th e need for systematic explicit reading inst ruction. She also had difficulties executing reading instruction because of her own misunderstandings and lack of knowledge about reading. For Kristy, the appropriation of tools concerni ng reading instruction was contingent upon her having opportunities to enact tools in practice, as well as extensive time to reflect on her instruction and receive fee dback and extensive support from her cooperating teacher and field supervisor. Influence of the Individual Prior experiences. Kristy, 27 years old, was the oldest of the six participants. Being older than the m ajority of her c ohort, Kristy felt a li ttle separated from the other pre-service teachers. In addition to a difference in age, Kr istys own educational background seemed to set

PAGE 104

104 her apart from her peers. The data indicated that as a student, Kristy was limited by her academic ability. On her prior beliefs and experiences survey, she wrote about acting out in math class because she did not understand and then being seat ed in the back of the classroom. She also wrote about dropping out of high school her se nior year, receiving her diploma through an alternative adult e ducation program. Her academic struggles seemed to follow her into her college studies as well. Of all the pre-service teachers who took the Phelps & Schilling (2004) reading survey at the beginning of the semester, Kristy scored the lowest. Her pe rsonal struggle to unders tand reading and the teaching of reading was documented several ti mes throughout the study. Kristy spoke about her own difficulty understanding when words would ta ke a long vs. short vowel sound. Mrs. Kirk, her cooperating teacher commented, I think she has a lot of growth in that area to go yet with reading and understating how reading works (1 0.4.07). During one observation, Kristy tried to help a student decode ir regular sight words like where and of. After watching her videotaped lesson, and seeing the difficulties the student was having, Kristy talked ab out how her teacher fog probably made him foggy (10.9.07). Mrs. Kirk, who had seen Kr isty instruct students to decode irregular words, said she had to explicitly tell Kristy that irregular words should not be decoded; rather, they have to be memorized. De spite Mrs. Kirks instru ction, Kristy still had trouble understanding the concept of irregular sight words, as indicated by her comments in a subsequent interview when she talk ed about trying to have studen ts hear the sound /ou/ makes in the word could. Personal attributes and concerns. Although Kristy had difficulties understanding aspects of the reading process, she had several person al attributes that supported her throughout the semester. Kristy was reflective, often record ing her thoughts, questions and self-proclaimed

PAGE 105

105 weaknesses in a journal. Throughout the semester, Kristy was willing to admit when her lessons did not go well, asserting, I knew I didnt do a good job (11.29.07). Kristy was aware that her lack of knowledge affected her instruction nega tively. She talked about wanting to convey ideas to students with the lightening speed they nee d. I dont want to be st anding up there thinking and confused (10.9.07). As a result of her strong desire to impr ove, Kristy was open to feedback from her cooperating teacher and field supervisor stating, I love that constructive feedback because I would rather someone tell me what I did wrong ra ther than you did perf ect, all 5s (11.29.07). Mrs. Kirk confirmed, the thing about Kristy is shes really open to you know, you helping her or telling her, you know Kristy, th ats not going to work, or you really didnt do that well (10.4.07). In an effort to improve her practice, Kris ty was not afraid to ask for help, seeking it from multiple sources. In addition to her coopera ting teacher and field supervisor, Kristy also went to the several faculty members at the university when she needed help. Finally, Kristy was a diligent worker and de dicated to her students and to the teaching profession. Most weeks Kristy work ed more than the required number of hours at her practicum placement. Mrs. Kirk said, Kristy, she wants to do the right thing. And she really tries hard and she shows a lot of initia tive about a lot of things. Shes ve ry good with the children when shes working with them (10.4.07). Speaking about a career in teaching, Kristy said I am not there because it is easy and I want to have a great time. There are a million jobs that are easy. I knew I was there for [student s]. I want to intimate ly know my students needs and I want to know their interests a nd I want to be committed to teaching them (11.29.07)! Influence of Social Contexts Practicu m placement. Kristys practicum placement was in a multi-age K-2 inclusive classroom with Mrs. Kirk, a general educator with 35 years of experience. Although being in a

PAGE 106

106 multi-age classroom exposed Kristy to three gr ade levels simultaneously, she struggled with developing and delivering appropria te instruction for students at various grade levels. In one lesson, Kristy was teaching the concept of contra ctions to three of th e younger students. After watching her videotaped lesson, Kr isty realized that the conc ept of contractions was too challenging for the students, especially because sh e presented multiple types of contractions in the same lesson. Reflecting, Kristy said There were just so many different types of contractions and I wasnt sure that I was actually getting to work with the right words. Yeah, that was a lot of different contractions to throw on them and it is hard. I am not dumb, but it is hard for me (11.29.07). Kristys practicum had a large impact on he r beliefs about reading instruction. At the beginning of the semester, Kristy believed that reading instruction should foster students aesthetic love of reading. Included on Kristy s pre-concept map were ideas such as social interaction, holistic, organic, drama and poetry. In essence, Kristy be lieved in a whole language approach to reading instruction. Initially, the reading instruction provided in Kristys practicum ali gned with her incoming beliefs. Mrs. Kirk used a program called the Dail y 5, which was comprised of (a) reading to self, (b) reading to others, (c) being read to, (d) word work, and (e ) practicing writing. According to Mrs. Kirk, I really feel that the children need to be more involved and more ownership in their learning, so what we started this year is called The Daily Five (10.4.07). The premise of instruction being more student-directed matched w ith Kristys initial beliefs. After having spent time in the classroom using this particular reading program, however, Kristy harbored doubts about its effectiveness. She was concerned that pretty much you leave [students] alone and let them read (9.11.07). In fact, according to the Da ily Five program, for 30 minutes each day, students are supposed to read sile ntly. Kristy was most concerned about the struggling readers, as

PAGE 107

107 indicated by her statement, I dont know about the students who are struggling. Are they reading, or are they looking at the book because they are out there on their own (11.29.07)? After having spent a semester using the Daily Five program, Kristys beliefs about reading instruction had changed. Although sh e still loved the idea of a w hole language and literature based approach to reading, she cam e to believe that this approach was not beneficial for the students who struggled with read ing. Therefore, Kristy drew upon the tools she learned in her reading methods courses. At the end of the se mester, when asked about her beliefs about how students best learn to read, she responded They learn best by having concrete and explicit instruction; something really clear, this is what it is and this is what I need you to do. Th ey need that immediate feedback. They need those multiple opportunities to re spond, the clear expectations and clear goals that they meet to have more of a sense of I am learning to read. I am improving (11.29.07). Kristys post-concept map supported her new be liefs in that she included multiple ideas related to explicit instruction, m odeling, benefits of direct instruction, and early intervention In addition to her beliefs about reading, Kr istys practicum placement forced her to examine her beliefs and practices concerning pl anning for instruction. Before watching the videotaped lessons, Kristy admitted, I wasnt pu tting a lot of time into preparing and so it is awakening [seeing] how I am on my feet (11.29. 07). Kristy realized that spending time planning her instruction in advance was crucial to her success because with more time spent planning lessons came more coherent and explicit instruction. As indica ted by Mrs. Kirk, for Kristy, it was especially importa nt that she think about what sh e would need to know ahead of time and how she was going to pres ent concepts to the students. University influence. For Kristy, university coursework was an important influence. In fact, it was a special education PROTEACH instructor and her passion for special education that sparked Kristys interest for sp ecial education. In relation to re ading, two experiences, learning

PAGE 108

108 phonics in her Emergent Literacy course and her UFLI training, were especially meaningful for Kristy. Although learning phonics was difficult a nd painful, Kristy likened it to medicine, you need it (9.11.07). Although Kristy realized the importance of learning phonics during her coursework, once she tried to translate this knowle dge into practice, she encountered difficulties. Kristy described how she knew the sounds letter s make but she felt nervous making the sounds, especially when she had to make them explicit for students. Conversely, Kristy felt more positive when she had an opportunity to apply skills in a structured way, such as when she was implementing UFLI tutoring. Kristy said, UFLI ta ught me so much. I can see immediate results with any student (11.29.07). Kristy may have felt more confident with implementing UFLI tutoring because as indicated by Instructor C, UFL I is a pretty directed experience. There is a lot of tutor decision-making thr oughout but its very guided. You base your decisions on really specific things. You go through the same steps so its pretty comfortable (10.30.07). Kristy had mixed feelings about the role of the field supervisor during her practicum. On the one hand, Kristy felt like the feedback provided by her field supervisor, Mrs. Smith, was helpful. After trying to implement a lesson on graphic organizers, Kristy felt completely frustrated that it ended in what she described as disaster. Mrs. Smith offered feedback, and when Kristy tried the lesson again incorpora ting the feedback, it was more successful. The difference between the two lessons was the amount of content. In Kris tys first lesson, the graphic organizer included too much inform ation and students became overwhelmed. Mrs. Smiths feedback was to reformat the graphic or ganizer so that it covered fewer skills. On a different occasion, however, Kristy indicated I am in the middle of working with [Mrs. Kirk and Mrs. Smith]. Its me in the middle and the field supervisor on one side and the teacher on the other and I am trying to validate what each of them are saying and expecting from me in a way that fits with what I think and believe, and it is difficult (11.29.07).

PAGE 109

109 Kristy described how she felt distressed when she received feedback from Mrs. Smith that contradicted the feedback she was receiving from Mrs. Kirk. Kristy went on to talk about how she got frustrated when Mrs. Kirk would tell her how to structure a lesson and after delivering the lesson, Mrs. Smith would cr itique the very lesson Mrs. Kirk had developed. In these situations, Kristy felt conflicte d over the disparate feedback. Appropriation of Tools For Kristy, the influence of the practicum wa s crucial to her appropr iation of conceptual and practical tools. She talked how the practicum helped her transfer he r learning. It was after teaching a lesson that Kristy was able to gauge how much she really understood a particular concept or tool. Kristys interview statemen ts indicated that she was most successful appropriating tools when she (a) enacted her knowl edge in practice, (b) had time to reflect on the outcome, (c) discussed her performance with some one who could provide he r with feedback, and (d) had an opportunity to practice the less on again. Although drawing on multiple sources of support, Kristys scores on the RISE never incr eased more than a half point. On the overall classroom rating, Kristy increased from 2 to 2.5. It seemed Kristys personal difficulties understanding the reading process c onstantly interfered with her de livery of reading instruction for students, thus an instance of individual infl uences mediating the appropriation of tools. Throughout the semester, there were few instan ces that indicated Kr isty had appropriated tools and knowledge about reading instruction to levels higher than surface features, especially related to phonemic awareness and phonics inst ruction as indicated by the observation and interview data. For example, at the end of the semester, Kristy still did not completely understand irregular words and how they should be taught. During the fi nal observation, Kristy had students try to sound out the word could. In the final interview it was clear Kristy did not know that could is an irregular word.

PAGE 110

110 In another instance, Kristy experienced diffi culty when she tried to incorporate phonemic awareness knowledge from her UFLI training in to her daily reading instruction with her practicum students. During a guided reading less on, Kristy tried to include the use of Elkonin boxes. Her lack of a deep understanding for th e underlying concepts of Elkonin boxes, however, foiled her instruction. In stead of using Elkonin boxes to prac tice the phonemic aw areness skill of segmenting individual phonemes, Kristy had th e students use the boxes to write down the onset and rime of various words. Several times dur ing the lesson, Kristys confusion about Elkonin boxes resulted in her changing her directions. As students became more confused, they became less engaged in the lesson. In addition to phonemic awareness and phonics instruction, Kristy also experienced problems delivering comprehension instruction. In one lesson, Kristy was teaching a small group of students about a comp rehension strategy called fix-it up a concept she had learned in her Intermediate Reading class. During the lesson, however, she had the students randomly pick words from a passage. The students chose the words pull pulled and pulling none of which were conducive for applying the fix-it up strategy b ecause they already knew the meanings of the words. Reflecting on this lesson Kristy admitted, rig ht off the bat [the words] seem really easy, they shouldnt be using those wo rds. I dont even know if it is valid to work with those words (11.29.07). Thus Kristy knew her lesson was not succe ssful, but the interview data indicated she did not understand the fix-it up stra tegy well enough to think of wa ys to improve the lesson for the future. Kristy had appropriated the label of the fix-it up strategy a nd a few of the surface features but her instruction and later reflections indicated that she did not understand all of the features of the strategy or its underlying concepts.

PAGE 111

111 Kristys appropriation of tools seemed to be highest in one particul ar area of reading-fluency. Not only did Kristy understand the thr ee components of fluency (speed, accuracy, and prosody), but also she was also able to translate that knowledge into effective instruction. In fact, Kristys highest score on the RISE was a 3.0 fo r fluency instruction. While working with one student, the observation data indi cated that Kristy e xplicitly taught him the meaning of prosody, she modeled reading with prosody by reading out loud using expressi on and proper inflection, and then used echo reading to have the student practice read ing with prosody. Interplay of Influences Although Kristys practicum experience cha nged her beliefs about effective reading instruction for struggling read ers, she had few opportunities to observe or enact explicit instruction, therefore, it is unclear to what degree she will be successful in implementing this kind of instruction at a future time. Kristys appropriation of tools seemed to be contingent upon her opportunities to situ ate her knowledge in practice and then have time to reflect on her instruction. At the end of the semester, Kristy affirmed that she felt she could be successful teaching struggling readers. She expressed doubts, howev er, about her ability to teach students with disabilities, stating, it is hard for me to work with students with special needs and find an accommodation that helps the content be more accessible for them (11.29.07). She mentioned she knew she needed to make accommodations for individual students, but she felt like she had not received enough coursework on how to do so. Melanie Entering her practicum with few prior experi ences with struggling readers and having had negative coursework experiences, the practicum placement was the most important influence on Melanies appropriation of tools. Melanies practicum teaching experiences centered on reading

PAGE 112

112 instruction for struggling readers and her c ooperating teacher had sp ecialized knowledge of reading interventions and curricula, thus crea ting an environment rich in opportunities for Melanie to enact her beginning reading knowle dge and receive content specific feedback. Influence of the Individual Prior experiences. As a student, Melanie attended sc hools that utilized self-contained service delivery m odels. She stated, I dont remember anybody ever being special ed in the classroom. SLD classes, they were nt part of our classes. I just remember it being the SLD wing of the building (9.12.07). She went on to talk about how she did not have much experience being in classes with struggling students as she was pulled out for gifted classes. Although entering the PROTEACH program with few prio r experiences with special education or struggling readers, Melani e quickly developed a personal desire to help students with disabilities. In relating why she chose to major in special e ducation Melanie indicated, The more I got into special ed classes, the more, it tugged at my h eart. These kids are falling through the cracks for really, no reason and I think everyone absolutely deserves a chance to get the best education possible (9.12.07). Her cooperating teacher, Mr s. Monroe, who was impressed by Melanies drive and determination to help fragile lear ners, confirmed Melanie s passion for helping students with disabilities. Personal attributes and concerns. In addition to her personal interest in working with students with disabilities, Melanie consistently reflected on her instruction, took responsibility for her students learning, and strived to implem ent the most effective instruction. Reflecting on her opinions about structured reading progr ams like Reading Mastery, Melanie said It does take away from my creativity but it works and you have to do what works, my job is meant to do what works, and it works from what Ive seen. It is very structured and sometimes I get bored with it, but it is not about me it is about [students] (11.30.07).

PAGE 113

113 After watching one of her videotaped lessons Melanie reflected on an activity that did not go as well as she would have liked. Melanie asked her small group of students to complete a workbook page on using context clues that accompanied the Reading Mastery curriculum. The activity turned out to be too ch allenging for the students, but ra ther than blaming the curriculum or the students, Melanie took responsibility and said, that was probably my fault for not thinking they might not ha ve known that (11.30.07). Finally, Melanie did not shy away from challe nges or difficult tasks. She talked about connecting and relating to stude nts as a challenge, a challeng e she wants to meet (9.12.07). Although working with students who struggled with reading was difficult, according to Melanie, working with them has made me want to be with them more (9.12.07). Mrs. Monroe confirmed Melanies strong work ethic when she sa id, Melanie is more than willing to learn, thats something a college cant instill in some one, its just her optimism, her roll up her sleeves attitude (10.7.07). Influence of Social Contexts Practicu m placement. Two aspects of Melanies pr acticum made it particularly meaningful and beneficial for her future goal as a special educator. One aspect was the extensive teaching opportunities with struggling readers, a nd the second aspect was a cooperating teacher who had extensive knowledge of reading instruction for struggling readers. Melanie was placed in a second grade inclus ive classroom with Mrs. Monroe, a general educator, who was responsible for teaching th e two lowest reading groups across the second grade team. According to Melanie, it was this te aching experience that really made a difference in her own reading knowledge abou t reading instruction for student s with disabilities. Having to teach reading to students who experienced difficulties made her go back and hone her knowledge. Melanie talked about having to basica lly go back and learn the alphabet further

PAGE 114

114 stating, this is the first time I have actually had to do it myself with the kids as opposed to just being told okay this is what it is, learn it, but actually having to do it made it more relevant for me (10.10.07). In addition to influencing her knowledge, Melanies teaching experiences during her practicum influenced her core beliefs about spec ial education and reading instruction for students with disabilities. Melanie said Before, I was not an advocate for inclusive classr oom at all. I thought th is is ridiculous, the teacher cant do it, why are all these kids, meaning special ed kids, losing out on instruction because someone wants them in a normal classroom. They need to get what they need to get. But since being in a classr oom with special ed kids, I would definitely push for [inclusion] because I have seen the kids that are struggling excel, they do well. I dont think it is applicable for every special ed kid, but theres definitely some students who can succeed and I think that they deserve it. I like seeing faces of kids and working with kids and I dont want them to be the odd kid or anything like that (11.30.07). Furthermore, upon seeing the success that her practicum students experienced when they received explicit, system atic, intensive, small group reading instruction, Melanie felt that these students have to have it or th ey are not going to get it (11.3 0.07). For Melanie, the practicum placement was proof that students with disabili ties could be included in general education classrooms and yet still receive the inte nsive instruction that they needed. Melanie attributes the success of her practicum to Mrs. Monroe. Although Mrs. Monroe was not a special educator, her prior work as a Title 1 teacher and a consultant for the McGraw Hill publishing group resulted in her extensive knowledge about reading, specifically for struggling readers and students with reading disabilities. As a fo rmer publishing consultant, Mrs. Monroe had a plethora of maninpulatives and read ing resources at her disposal, and Melanie was free to use them in her instruction. Mrs. Monr oes extensive collecti on of resources helped Melanie see the variety of ways instruction can be made more concrete and engaging for students. Observation data verified her use of manipulatives in her instruction. In one lesson,

PAGE 115

115 Melanie made use of letter sound cards displaye d on the wall, while in another lesson, she used dry erase boards with Elkonin boxes on them, and fi nally she used a specialized board game that helped the students practice spelling. When it came to lesson planning, Mrs. Monroe was a source of support for Melanie. Mrs. Monroe was always willing to an swer Melanies questions about an upcoming lesson, and in fact Mrs. Monroe had a sequence of support she used wh en helping Melanie so that her lessons could be as successful as possi ble. Mrs. Monroe said I have her watch some components, and then I have her step in while Im there to coach and get her a little more comfor table with the language. And th en we talk about looking at the next day, some of the activities that sh e could do on her own and we make a copy of the teachers edition to take home with her to practice and then she comes in and teaches the lesson and then we debrief after the lesson about what went well an d things that didnt go well and what we would do differe ntly. And go from there (10.7.07). In addition to support with lesson planning, Mr s. Monroe provided Melanie with specific feedback related to reading in c onjunction with feedback on genera l instructional practices. Mrs. Monroes coaching resulted in Me lanie consistently delivering c oherent lessons during all three observations. University influence. When it came to her reading coursework, Melanie expressed discouragement and frustration. She spoke about her Emergent Literacy course as a negative experience, the class was so disorganized that I felt I got a major disservi ce and didnt learn that much about reading. I didnt want to teach reading after that cla ss, and everyone in the class will tell you that. I dont know if its [the course in structors] fault, or just miscommunication (9.12.07). Melanies negative feelings had a lasting impact, because when she needed to go back and learn more about phonemic awareness and p honics to prepare for one of her practicum lessons, Melanie was resistant to referring back to her Emergent Literacy course materials

PAGE 116

116 because she did not think the class was worthwhi le. In speaking about her Intermediate reading course, Melanie said they did some good lesso ns, but she did not recall anything specific. Interview data indicated that for Melanie, the knowledge she was exposed to during her coursework only became clear and meaningful when she had an opportunity to link it to classroom practice. Melanie stressed that, its fi nally clicked now that we re working with kids, oh that is what [course instructor s] meant. I never felt I actually go t a grasp of it until we stated doing it in the placement (9.12.07). Appropriation of Tools Melan ies positive practicum experience, with its structured curriculum and knowledgeable cooperating teacher, supported her re ading instruction. Over the course of the semester, Melanies overall cla ssroom practice rating on the RISE increased from 3 to 3.5. By the final observation, Melanie received a rati ng of 4 on both phonemic awareness and phonics and 3.5 on fluency, some of the highest sc ores across all of the participants. According to Melanie, observing Mrs. Monroe and having to teach students helped her appropriate knowledge of individua l letter sounds, includ ing the proper way to say all the letter sounds as well as other information like whet her a sound is voiced or unvoiced, stopped or continuous. Although Melanies Emer gent Literacy class covered information about the letter sounds, Melanie reported she did not truly appropriate this knowledge until being placed in her practicum. Observation data confirmed Melani es appropriation of the letter sounds while teaching in her practicum. During a review, Melanie pointed to the letter b and asked one of the students for the proper sound. The student said /bah/ and Melani e corrected him by saying, its not /bah/ its /b/, it is a st opped sound (10.2.07). Here is an ex ample of how Melanies social context mediated her knowledge, helping her ap propriate knowledge abou t letter sounds that moves beyond just the letters label and basic sound.

PAGE 117

117 Melanie also appropriated tools about positiv e reinforcement and behavior charts linked to extrinsic rewards. Melanie described how one reading group in particular posed some formidable behavior problems, t hus Mrs. Monroe decided to impl ement a formal behavior plan. The students each had a behavior sheet and would earn xs in a grid when they demonstrated appropriate behavior. When a stude nts grid was full, he or sh e would earn a reward. Seeing how well the behavior plan worked, Melanie incorpor ated it into her instruction. During all three observations, Melanie rewarded students with an x on their sheet when they successfully completed work and when they were exhibiting appropriate behavior. The influence of Melanies practicum placement on her classroom manageme nt was beneficial because, of the six participants, her scores on classroom management were among the highest. Finally, Melanie appropriated c onceptual and practical tools regarding proper instruction for students with disabilities, in struction that is engaging, intens ive, explicit, and systematic. Melanie understood that engaging st udents in instruction was cr itical, and she expanded on the Reading Mastery curriculum to make it more engaging. During one observation, Melanie added a mini lesson on phonemic segmentation using Elkoni n boxes that were displayed on magnetic dry erase boards. When asked about expanding Reading Mastery to include the mini lesson, Melanie said I am sure you are supposed to stick to that ri gid structure all the tim e but I think that can get really tedious. I thin k using this manipulative is different it is engaging plus they get to do it themselves, so it is reinforcing the lesson. It is the same skill, just a little different and fun. It is almost like a treat but without lo sing what we are really trying to accomplish (11.30.07). Here Melanie was not bound by the curriculum, ra ther she used its structure in conjunction with her own knowledge of reading and effective instructional practices, thus serving as evidence of Melanies appropriation of curriculum as a tool.

PAGE 118

118 Melanie also learned about the power of sma ll group instruction that is intensive. Her interview comments indicated he r understanding of the purpos e of small group instruction reached conceptual levels. She talked about two students who had made ex traordinary growth in the small group and whose progress monitoring scores indicated they were nearly ready for the larger, on grade level reading group. Reflecti ng on the two students Melanie surmised The whole point of small groups is to speed them along, get them back into the regular class, and they have to go at a way faster pa ce to get there. That was like, right there for me, ah-hah, with the right inst ruction, they can learn and make massive leaps (11.30.07). Melanies post concept map corroborated her appropriation of tools about reading instruction for students with disabilities. Wher eas her pre-concept map only included information about the five areas of reading, her post-concept map included ideas about instruction needing to be explicit and systematic. Interplay of Influences Before entering her practicum, Melanie felt least confident in he r abilities to teach reading, something she attributed to her negative coursework experiences. After completing her practicum with Mrs. Monroe, however, Melanie fe lt that providing beginning reading instruction to struggling readers was the area she felt most prepared to teach. Observing the students success throughout the semester confirmed her desire to be a special educ ator, and her beliefs changed to accept inclusive models that are design ed to provide struggling readers with intensive reading instruction. Nancy An especially important influence for Nancy was her family. Having a brother with a disability resulted in Nancy wan ting to be a special educator. Her practicum placement was also an important albeit negative influence. Bei ng placed in a challenging classroom, with little

PAGE 119

119 guidance or flexibility, had las ting negative repercussions, culmin ating in Nancy questioning her abilities as a teacher, particularly a special educator. Influence of the Individual Prior experiences. Nancys m otivation for being a sp ecial educator originated from observing her brothers academic struggles. Nancy s brother was placed in self-contained special education classes and Nancy believed his teach ers had low expectations of him and did not provide him with the quality education he dese rved. Her experiences with her brother also shaped her beliefs about special education and the need to include students in the general education class. In addition to having a strong desire to help students with disabilities, Nancy also had interest in helping students from high poverty homes. Her practicum placement and prior field placements were in schools with the lo west SES levels in the district. Personal attributes and concerns. Although Nancy wanted to help students from high poverty homes, several barriers stood in her way of successfully working with such students. First, Nancy was shy, soft spoken, and timid. She admitted that she did not think she had the personality to work in high poverty schools. Second, Nancys background was not similar to the students she taught. When talking about what was most difficult about her practicum, Nancy ac knowledged, being from a very different background from some of the students. Not that I thought le ss of them because of it, but because maybe I did not have that real understanding of where they come from (12.12.07). Her prior experiences and responses on the belief s survey confirmed the background differences Nancy described. Nancy attended rural and s uburban schools as a student. Although there was some cultural diversity in schools Nancy atte nded, her honors classes were mostly White.

PAGE 120

120 Nancys practicum class, however, was composed of all African American students with the majority of them qualifying for free/reduced lunch. Finally, Nancy lacked confidence about her teaching abilities, st ating, I am just wondering how I will handle the classroom by my self (12.12.07). During observations, Nancy was noticeably nervous, often flus hing, clearing her thro at, and speaking with a tremble in her voice. According to Mrs. Nell, to improve he r teaching, Nancy needed to be sterner because, she is so soft spoken and sometimes the students are not paying attention (11.14.07). Influence of Social Contexts Practicu m placement. Roosevelt Elementary was a Success for All (SFA) school, which meant for reading, the students acro ss the entire school were ability grouped. Mrs. Nells reading class was on a 3.2 level, meaning second half of third grade. For th ese students, reading instruction centered on fluency, vocabulary, a nd comprehension. Under the SFA model, there was also a large writing component. Accordi ng to Nancy the SFA m odel and curriculum: Has its good points and bad point s. I dont like the comprehe nsion questions. They have open ended questions that I guess are that higher order, but th en they only have one answer and not even I knew what that one answer was wh en I am trying to help [students] so I get very frustrated. I do like how they have [word reading] strategies, but I dont like how they only go with one strategy because there are alwa ys different strategies to approach words (10.24.07). Observation data confirmed Nancys frustra tion with the comprehension questions. Once, while students were working to answer some comprehension questions they encountered a question that was particularly confusing. Severa l students asked Nancy for help, but she did not understand the intent of the question. After wrest ling to find the answer and being unsuccessful, Nancy and the students had to turn to Mrs. Nell for help, but Mrs. Nell, also confused by the question, resolved the confusion by telling the students to skip it.

PAGE 121

121 When asked about accommodations for students with disabilities in the class, Nancy attested, I havent seen any (9.20.07). Aside from being placed in reading skill groups, no additional accommodations were made for student s with disabilities accor ding to the observation data. For example, students who were reading be low grade level were not given any small group intensive reading instruction during the 90-mi nute reading block. Furthermore, students who exhibited extreme behavior problems were not given any specific behavior management plan. Rather than receiving accommodations, they were moved out of Mrs. Nells class. Despite the removal of the two students with behavior problems, classroom management continued to be a problem in Mrs. Nells class, creating much stress for Nancy. Mrs. Nell herself admitted that, now this is a difficult class a nd at times its a little difficult for me (11.14.07). Classroom observations confirmed the challengi ng student behaviors. Students often argued over their assignments, got out of their seats without permission, a nd shouted across the room. During one observation, two female students were bickering and the argumen t escalated resulting in the students using inappropriate language, shouting, and rising out of their seats as if to engage in a physical confrontation. Mrs. Nell made one of th e two girls sit by her for an extended period of time until both girls were settled and calm. Although the class posed signifi cant behavior problems, there was no formal classroom management system in place. During Nancys firs t observation, she used different colored paper plates with numbers on the perimeter and cl othespins to reward cooperative group work. According to Nancy when teams were on task, she was supposed to move the clothespin around the plate to designate the number of points the team had earned. If a team earned 20 points the students would get a reward. This system was no t effective, however, because Nancy said the day of the observation was the only time they used it. On the day of the observation, Mrs. Nell

PAGE 122

122 told Nancy to use the plates, but the students were not familiar with the plates. Not being familiar with the classroom management system herself, Nancy, forgot to move the clothespin during the lesson. During later observations, the paper plates we re not used. In a subsequent interview, the researcher asked Nancy why the paper pl ates were abandoned and Nancy replied I think the day that I used it was the only da y we used it and I dont know why but it got to where it just wasnt used anymore. I dont know if it just got to be too hard to observe everyone or is we just didnt know what c onstitutes (points) deserving to go up or down (12.12.07). Adding more stress to the classroom environment, Nancy felt the school culture overemphasized the Florida Comprehensive Asse ssment Test (FCAT). Nancy asserted, it was almost like they were so afraid to fail the FCAT that they focused a lot of their instruction on preparing for the FCAT. So I was stressed. I cant imagine how the students must feel (12.12.07). Mrs. Nell also talked about the need to help stud ents pass the FCAT when she described how they had FCAT article Friday when they incorporated strategies to help the students pass the FCAT. In addition to the classroom and school climate, Mrs. Nells mentoring style also created stress for Nancy. Nancy reported that she di d not get much guidance when planning and preparing for lessons when she said, I didnt really talk to [Mrs. Nell]. She told me to go to the SFA room and get the books and I copied off the lesson from the teachers manual and looked at it and that was about it (10.24.07). Mrs. Nell verified the lack of lesson collaboration when she admitted We plan it together, well not necessarily plan it together. Basically she plans it on her own because I give her the teachers book and she has watched me enough to know what to do. So she basically plans it on her own, all I really do is give he r the book and she does the rest (11.14.07). Receiving adequate feedback was also a problem Nancy encountered. Nancy talked about how she did not get sufficient feedback because, it is such a busy classroom and I am tutoring

PAGE 123

123 during the resource which is her pl anning time. It is hard to ge t her and I email and she had a hard time getting back to me (10.24.07). When Mrs. Nell did provide Nancy with feedback, the feedback was not specific and did not guide Nancy as to what she should do to change or improve her instruction. The combination of negative factors aff ected on Nancys instruction and overall confidence. From the observation data, it was cl ear that as behavior problems unfolded during her instruction, and Nancy did not have effectiv e ways to handle them, students often sought out Mrs. Nell to resolve the problems. Nancy reflecte d, I wish I could have built more trust with them, but knowing that I am only there three days a week, it is understandable, plus they know that I am just a helper and she is the main teacher (12.12.07). Because Nancy had to spend so much time and energy trying to maintain class control, she could not focus on refining her reading instruction. After watching one of her videotaped lessons, Nancy noticed that she had to virtually read from the teachers manual wh en providing reading instruction. She hoped she would have more opportunities to deliver reading instruction because she wanted to move away from always relying on the teachers edition a nd instead develop her own instructional dialogue. University influence. The role of coursework in Nanc ys teaching is somewhat unclear. She talked about UFLI training being the most meaningful university experience because it helped her have a clearer understa nding of the concepts she lear ned in her Emergent Literacy course. She reported, being intimidated after taki ng the Emergent Literacy course because of the amount of content. All of the Emergent L iteracy course instruct ors confirmed the large amount of course material. In fact, Instructor A commented that a way to improve the class would be to extend it over the c ourse of two semesters rather than just one. Nancy also talked about being intimidated to teach reading because as a good reader, she was not aware of all the

PAGE 124

124 processes that go into reading a nd learning to read. Her coursework made her realize how hard reading is to teach (9.20.07). Although she learned about reading from the university coursework, the confining regimen of the SFA curriculum did not leave Nancy much room to implement any of her reading tools. Nancy had mixed feelings about the suggestio ns offered by her field supervisor, Mrs. Baker. Nancy said Mrs. Baker gave her some a dvice on behavior management that was helpful, but Mrs. Bakers advice on developing a teachin g style was more difficult to accept. Nancy talked about not being able to develop her own st yle, especially with he r practicum class because they were so chatty and hard to control. Appropriation of Tools Nancys tim idity and lack of confidence coupl ed with an extremel y challenging practicum placement had negative effects on her tool approp riation and classroom reading instruction. On the RISE, Nancys overall classroom rating increased from a 1.5 to a 2, but these were the lowest scores of all the participants. As noted earlier, there was little evidence that Nancy appropriated any tools concerning classroom management. Her classroom management scores remained at 1.5 throughout the semester; the lo west scores in the study. Nancy seemed to perform better in the area of fluency, with obser vation data supporting her appropriation of tools relate d to fluency instruction and the use of questioning during read-alouds. In fluency, her score increased from a 2 to a 2.5. During the classroom observations, Nancy modeled fluent reading us ing read-a-louds and the students read passages multiple times using independent and partner r eading strategies. Nanc y reported that she read the SFA listening comprehension stories in advance and developed comprehension questions to ask during read-alouds. Observation data confirmed Nancys use of questions that covere d both lower and higher order thinking. What is unclear is whether Nanc y appropriated ideas about fluency instruction

PAGE 125

125 and questioning because the structured SFA curricu lum dictated the use of these practices, or whether Nancy drew from the knowledge she le arned in her Emergent Literacy course. Interplay of Influences Three factors seem ed to stand in the way of Nancys instruction and knowledge appropriation of reading for stude nts with disabilities. Nancys timid personality, her lack of confidence, and the challenging context in which she was placed made for a stressful teaching situation. At the end of the semester, Nancy was left questioning herself and everything she had learned. She described how after one especially frustrating day, she left questioning her teaching skills and her beliefs about teaching. In the end, Nancy admitted not feeling confident to teach struggling readers or studen ts with disabilities. Tricia Several characteristics of Tricias background in fluenced her beliefs and future goals, thus one of the biggest influences on Tricia was the ro le of the individual. Although the data indicated Tricia learned from her practicum placement, she was resistant to it because of the many instructional restricti ons she encountered. Influence of the Individual Prior experiences. Tricias m other was a teacher and throughout the study, it was clear that her mothers influence was important to her. Tricia commented that her interest in special education was sparked because her mother thought special educators could earn more money. In addition to the possibility of earning more income Tricia wanted to major in special education because she wanted to know how to help all st udents. Her goal was to be a general education teacher, but she wanted to have strategies to help students with disabilities that she assumed would be included in her class. In speaking about strategies for help ing all students, Tricia talked

PAGE 126

126 about developing a teacher toolki t, going on to say that she learned about the idea of a teacher toolkit directly from her mom. On her prior experiences and beliefs surve y, Tricia described how as a student, she attended the same private college preparatory sc hool for grades K-12, with a graduating class of 42 predominantly upper-middle class white students. Tricia talked about how she did not relate to many of her students. She described how the st udents in one of her placements were low SES and came from varying backgrounds, going on to say At times I found it difficult to relate to them and I started feeling like maybe I am not really the best person to reach these kids, wher eas I can relate to the kids who have parents who are involved. I dont know, I dont want to come across snobby but I can relate to [higher SES] kids and so I feel like I can probably help them better (9.11.07). Before her practicum placement, Tricia said she had few prior experiences with special education admitting that she thought special educ ation meant you send your kids to another classroom (9.11.07). Additionally, she had no recollec tion for how she learned to read. The first time she had ever thought about how she learned to read was in her reading methods courses. Personal attributes and concerns. Throughout the study, there wa s evidence that Tricia was reflective and a dedicated student. After view ing her video taped less ons, Tricia was always able to articulate several ways in which she could improve. As will be described in a later section, Tricia consistently refl ected on ways to integrate her university coursework with her practicum. Mrs. Taylors comments confirmed Tric ias personal attributes. Mrs. Taylor stressed that Tricia was doing an excellent job and that her lesson plans indicated a great deal of prior thought. One of Tricias goals as a teacher was to make learning and reading fun. Several times throughout the semester, Tricia indicated that the reading instruct ion in her practicum would be better if it incorporated more f un activities, such as readers workshop and silent pleasure

PAGE 127

127 reading. Furthermore, as she was exposed to stra tegies in both her practi cum and her coursework she evaluated them based on whether she thought she would have liked them when she was in elementary school. Influence of Social Contexts Practicu m placement. Tricias practicum placement wa s with Mrs. Taylor, a special educator with almost 40 years of experience. Mrs. Taylor worked with special education students in grades K-3. Mrs. Taylor and the general educ ation teachers used a combined push-in pullout service delivery model. Mrs. Taylor used a comb ination of the basal read ing series and Reading Mastery with her students. Tricia talked at length ab out the restrictions she enc ountered during her practicum placement. She asserted We do the same thing in my placement everyd ay like clockwork, theres not a lot of opportunity to bring in any diffe rent kinds of strategies into her curriculum and I didnt learn Reading Mastery before this semester. So not a lot of things that I learned at UF have been used here. Shes really set in her ways (10.15.07). Mrs. Taylor told Tricia what needed to be done each day, and Tricia was able to choose small variations of how to going about doing it (10.15.07). Tricia gave the example that when Mrs. Taylor told Tricia that th e students needed to reread a stor y, Tricia could choose choral or partner reading, but that was the extent of her instructional free dom. Observation data verified Tricias limitations. Observations one and two were almost identical. Tricia conducted guided reading groups on both occasions. For both lessons she modeled fluent reading and had students take turns reading out loud. When asked about he r use of index cards with vocabulary words on them, Tricia said, I wish it was my idea but that is how Mrs. Taylor does it (12.11.07). For almost every strategy she used, Tricia credited Mrs. Taylor.

PAGE 128

128 Tricias instruction was further limited by th e use of Reading Master y in her practicum. Until Tricia was properly trained in Reading Mast ery, Mrs. Taylor would not permit Tricia to teach the reading groups that utili zed this curriculum. Mrs. Taylor said, it would be nice if she had [Reading Mastery] training because I woul d like for her to take over a whole group (10.8.07). Tricia and the rest of her cohort did not receive Reading Mastery training until November of the fall semester, so Tricia ha d few opportunities to work with students using Reading Mastery before attend ing the November training. Tricia talked about not feeling capable to take over Mrs. Taylors instruction because Mrs. Taylor had such a hard time giving it up. Tricia went on to say, some of my insecurities were because she had such a hard time trusting me to take over (12.11.07). Some of Mrs. Taylors comments shed light on her difficult y in giving the instruction over to Tricia. Mrs. Taylor talked about how she used to have practicum students and interns every year but that some of these preservice teachers did not live up to her expectations. Mrs. Taylor therefore, was hesitant to accept new pre-service teachers and she was often reluct ant to relinquish instru ction to pre-service teachers until she was sure they were serious pre-service teachers, capable of doing a good job. University influence. Tricias university coursework was positive. She felt her Emergent Literacy course was especially meaningful becau se Instructor A was a good teacher. As often as she could, Tricia tried to implement the tool s she learned from her coursework. In one of her prior placements, she used some of the comprehens ion strategies she learned in her Intermediate Reading class. Although Tricia did not have much freedom in her practicum placement, she still thought about the tools she was learning from he r coursework and how she might have applied them to the classroom. For example, during th e study, Tricia had two courses on assessment, thus Tricia talked about how she wished she coul d see the students assessment data so she could

PAGE 129

129 apply some of her assessment knowledge to her practicum. She knew she could not change Mrs. Taylors established routine, so Tricia, with the he lp of her field supervisor, Mrs. Grant, tried to think of small ways to incorporate assessment tools into her instruction. Tr icia tried one of Mrs. Grants suggestions, which was to take some br ief notes on how students did with a particular skill and then use those notes to help differen tiate instruction in s ubsequent lessons. Although Tricia was able to use Mrs. Grants note taking suggestion, she was frustrat ed that she could not try some of the other suggestions because they di d not fit in Mrs. Taylors established routine. Appropriation of Tools Although Tricia com plained about several aspect s of her practicum, her scores on the RISE were some of the highest of all the participan ts. Her overall classroom rating rose from 3 to 3.5 and her classroom management score remained at 3.5 Tricia was one of the only participants who over the course of the semest er had opportunities to implement instruction in all five areas of reading, with no subscale score dropping below 2. In fact, most of her scores on the individual reading components were 3.5. Her post concept ma p also indicated Tricia had appropriated conceptual and practical tools a bout reading instructi on, especially for struggling readers. While her pre-concept map only included six terms, only one of which addressed the five major reading components, her post-concept map depicted 30 term s, with all five areas of reading, ways to teach them, and concepts about direct instruction. At the end of the semester, Tricia underst ood that struggling readers and students with disabilities benefit from explic it instruction. She talked about how it was helpful to see how patient Mrs. Taylor was with th e students and the clarity with which she delivered instruction. Although Tricia realized that stude nts improved with the explicit and direct instruction that was a part of Reading Mastery, she still thought the students s hould learn about fun things

PAGE 130

130 (12.11.07). Tricia went on to talk about the need for students to choose fun books that they would love to read. Tricia also acquired knowledge of the letter sounds. She talk ed about learning the sounds from Instructor C and the UFLI training, but it was not until she used Reading Mastery that she felt confident making the sounds. Observation data from her final observation showed that Tricia had proper knowledge of the lette r sounds as she was implementing Reading Mastery. Here is an example in which Tricia appropriated labels and surface features of lett ers and their sounds, but it is not clear whether she learned more sophist icated knowledge about letter sounds such as the different types of sounds and prope r sequences for introducing sounds. Finally, Tricia appropriated conceptual and practical tools concerning various classroom management techniques including using positive rein forcement and negative reinforcement. Mrs. Taylor, and subsequently Tricia awarded students yes and no monkey points. At the end of the week, students who had less than two no m onkey points earned a monkey prize. The prize was a chance to watch a battery operated, pur ple stuffed animal monkey scream. During her observations, Tricia was seen giving yes monkey points when st udents followed directions and completed their individual turns during Readi ng Mastery. She did, however, give one student a no monkey point for being off task and disrupt ive. Reflecting on the negative reinforcement Tricia stated she did not think the no monkeys were as effective because after receiving a no monkey, some students got upset and shut down. Tric ia further commented th at Mrs. Taylor had a strategy for avoiding these type s of shut-downs. As soon as a child received a no monkey point, Mrs. Taylor would immedi ately give the child an opportunity for success, and therefore a yes monkey point and that would bring the student back into th e instruction. Reflecting on Mrs. Taylors use of positive and negative reinforcement, Tricia seemed to be reaching some

PAGE 131

131 conceptual understanding behind the use of this type of behavior management system, because she not only knew its label and surface features but she also understood the conditions under which the system could be most effective for students. In addition to positive and negative reinforcement, the observation data indicated that Tricia also appropriated other classroom management tools. During instruction, Tricia always spoke, slowly, calmly, and quietly. Her tone of voice seemed to calm the students and forced them to pay attention to her. She also reviewed the rules and behavioral expectations at the beginning of each lesson. When asked about this strategy, Tricia said she learned it from Mrs. Taylor. Interplay of Influences Although Tricia had negative perceptions of her practicum due to its instructional restrictions, the interview and observation data indicated Tricia appropriated valuable tools. What is unclear is whether Tricia will draw upon any of her practicum knowledge in future teaching situations. At the end of the semester, Tricia admitted feeling most confident to teach the areas of reading that she had practiced during her practicum phonemic awareness and phonics. She stated she felt less comfortable with comprehension because she did not have as many opportunities to teach it. Tricia felt confiden t to teach struggling readers, especially when given a supportive curriculum lik e Reading Mastery, but she did not feel as confident to teach students with disabilities, because she lacked knowledge in how to determine individual students needs, deliver targeted instruction gauged at that those needs, and then evaluate whether the students needs were met. Summary The influences of the individual, unive rsity, and practicum placement interacted differently for each of the six participants and their appropriation of tool s to teach reading to

PAGE 132

132 struggling readers and students w ith disabilities. Although there were differences between the participants and their learning influences, as th e next chapter will show, these differences come together to form an explanatory model of preservice teacher appropriation of conceptual and practical tools. In the following chapter, this model, or grounded theory will be discussed.

PAGE 133

133Table 4-1. Influences on i ndividual pre-service teacher s appropriation of tools. Selective codes Axial codes Anita Colleen Kristy Melanie Nancy Tricia Personal qualities rigid adherence to structure (I) takes initiative(I) open minded(I) determined( I) timid(I) reflective(I) organized (I) desire to be liked(I) difficulty with school(I) accepts challenges(I) lacks confidence(I) dedicated time to lesson planning(I) dedicated time to lesson planning(I) difficulty with reading knowledge(I) reflective(I) developed personal teaching style(I) reflective(I) strives for excellence(I) systematic(I) honest about abilities(I) receptive to feedback(I) limited time spent planning(I) Motivation for knowledge assimilation positive family influence(I) sibling w/ disability(I) strong dedication to teaching(I) wants to implement effective instruction(I) intrinsic motivation to help students w/ disabilities(I) positive family influence(I) intrinsic motivation to help students w/ disabilities(I) intrinsic motivation to help students w/ disabilities(I) strong desire to improve(I) intrinsic motivation to help students w/ disabilities(I) sibling w/ disability(I) future goal as general educator(I)

PAGE 134

134 Table 4-1. Continued Selective codes Axial codes Anita Colleen Kristy Melanie Nancy Tricia future goal as special educator(I) accountable for delivering instruction(P) accountable for delivering instruction(P) wants larger salary(I) accountable for delivering instruction(P) takes responsibility for student learning(I) Access to knowledge prior experiences observing in inclusive classrooms(I) UFLI(U) UFLI(U) negative Emergent Literacy course(U) general education cooperating teacher(P) mother is teacher(I) lack of opportunities to observe accommodations(P) special education cooperating teacher(P) general education cooperating teacher(P) few prior experiences with special education(I) cooperating teacher w/ limited time(P) lack of prior special education experiences(I) cooperating teacher lacking beginning reading knowledge(P) few prior special education experiences (I) Emergent Literacy(U) special education cooperating teacher(I) limited access to special education knowledge(P) lack of prior reading memories(I) general education cooperating teacher(P) few early reading memories(I) field supervisor(U) limited feedback in practicum(P) special education cooperating teacher(P)

PAGE 135

135 Table 4-1. Continued Selective codes Axial codes Anita Colleen Kristy Melanie Nancy Tricia Emergent Literacy(U) multiple teachers in the classroom(P) lack of opportunities to observe explicit instruction(P) Emergent Literacy(U) Emergent Literacy(U) field supervisor(U) conflicting coursework(U) UFLI(U) assessment courses(U) assessment courses(U) field supervisor(U) field supervisor(U) UFLI(U) Opportunities to appropriate knowledge in practice few opportunities to implement intensive reading instruction(P) lack of opportunities to plan instruction(P) changes reading beliefs(P) exclusive work with students with disabilities(P) different cultural backgrounds(I,P) different cultural backgrounds(I, P) no classroom differentiation(P) gaps between university and practicum(U,P) helps identify holes in knowledge(P) multiple opportunities to teach reading(P) challenging classroom management(P) little instructional freedom(P) little instructional freedom(P) multiple service delivery models(P) opportunities for 5 big areas(P) changes beliefs about special education(P) limited teaching opportunities(P) confining curriculum(P) gaps between university & practicum (U,P) exclusive work w/ students w/ disabilities(P) no opportunities for vocab or comp (P) FCAT focus(P) opportunities for 5 big areas(P)

PAGE 136

136 Table 4-1. Continued Selective codes Axial codes Anita Colleen Kristy Melanie Nancy Tricia no opportunity for PA, phonics, or fluency(P) no opportunities for fluency, vocab, or comp (P) confining curriculum(P) no opportunities for PA or phonics Note. (I)=influence of the individual; (U )= influence of the university; (P)= influence of the practicum.

PAGE 137

137 CHAPTER 5 THE GROUNDED THEORY ON PRE-SERV I CE TEACHER APPROPRIATION OF CONCEPTUAL AND PRACTICAL TOOLS The purpose of this chapter is to present a grounded theory on special education preservice teachers appropri ation of conceptual and practical tool s related to reading instruction for struggling readers and students w ith disabilities. The grounded theo ry emerged from data that focused on the influences that mediated the preservice teachers appropriation of conceptual and practical tools. The influences included those rela ted to the individual and to social contexts, in this case the university and the practicum experien ce. Chapter four described the impact of these influences on individual pre-service teacher s. Developed through cross-case analysis, the grounded theory uncovered the relationships among influences that mediated special education pre-service teachers appropriation of conceptual and practical tools for teaching reading to students with disabilities. The researcher look ed for concepts that were consistent across participants, thus completing the cross-case analys is. These main concepts framed all coded data for participants. The grounded theory provides an analytical explanation of how the various influences interact to promote or hinder pre-service teachers appropriation of conceptual and practical tools. Using data from interviews, classroom obser vations, and artifacts, the researcher examined the role of individual in fluences and the role of social c ontext influences on the participants appropriation of pedagogical tools, all of which comprise activity theory. Integrating the data using constant questioning and comparison, the rese archer discovered the core concept, which is the main theme of the study and the component con cepts, which interact with the core concept to form a complete theory to understand the appr opriation of conceptual and practical tools. Figure 5-1 illustrates this gr ounded theory consisting of (a) the three activity systems and the influences contained therein, (b) the core co ncept and three component concepts that impact

PAGE 138

138 the appropriation of conceptual and practical tools, and (c) inte raction of concepts under which this appropriation takes place. For a comprehe nsive list of each activity system and its constituent influences, refer to Table 5-1. The shaded rounded rectangle containing opportunities to appropriate knowledge in practice represents the core concept. This core con cept emerged as the most important factor in pre-service teachers appropriation of conceptual and practical tools. Without opportunities to appropriate knowledge in practice, the pre-service teachers adopti on of conceptual and practical tools reached low levels at best. This concept becomes inextricably linked to the three component concepts and serves as the primary conduit through whic h the three component concepts are connected. The r ounded rectangles in the middle of the diagram represent the component concepts that either worked to support or hinder preservice teacher tool appropriation including (a) pers onal qualities, (b) motivation fo r knowledge assimilation, and (c) access to knowledge. These three component concepts interacted with the core concept to shape the pre-service teachers appropr iation of conceptual and practical tools. The double arrows linking the core concept to the three component concepts denote two-way interactions. In other words, the core concept influenced the component concepts and vice ve rsa. Although the data did provide evidence of the two-way interacti ons between the core concept and component concepts, without following the pre-service teac hers beyond their practicum experience, it is difficult to fully understand the nature of th ese two-way interacti ons. The bidirectional relationships between the core and component concepts, therefore, are represented by dotted lines. The pre-service teachers personal qualities, su ch as personal attribut es, academic ability, future goals, beliefs, and concerns, emerged as im portant influences. Personal qualities shed light

PAGE 139

139 on how the pre-service teacher s perceived themselves, others, and their surroundings. Additionally, this component concep t provided insights into what th e pre-service teachers valued and how they approached tasks. While personal qualities influenced pre-service teachers opportunities to appropriate knowledge in practice the reverse was also true. For example, Nancys timidity thwarted her ability to manage classroom behaviors, which ultimately foiled her reading instruction. The opportunity to approp riate her knowledge in a challenging practicum placement, however, diminished her confidence, leaving her feeling ine fficacious. Hence, the interaction between the core concept and pe rsonal qualities worked in two directions. Closely related to personal qualities was motivation, either intrinsic or extrinsic, for knowledge assimilation. This component concept included the pre-servic e teachers impetuses for appropriating conceptual and practical tool s. For instance, upon entering her practicum, Melanie had little motivation to learn the phoni cs knowledge she was exposed to during her Emergent Literacy course. Being responsible for delivering effec tive beginning reading instruction in her practicum, however, increased her motivation to appropriate phonics tools. The final component concept, access to knowle dge, included all th e sources of knowledge available to the pre-service teachers. The rela tionship between access to knowledge and the core concept also worked in two directions. For example, Kristy had access to phonics knowledge from her Emergent Literacy cour se, but it was the opportunity to appropriate this knowledge in practice that helped her realize she did not fully understand phonics. As a result, Kristy sought help from her cooperating teacher and field supervisor, thus increasing her access to knowledge. Though Table 4-1 in chapter 4 presented selectiv e and axial codes to i llustrate how various influences affected each of the participants differentially, the grounded theory diagram provides a conceptual framework that rela tes the various influences and

PAGE 140

140 concepts and explains how they mediated preservice teachers appropriation of conceptual and practical tools as a collectiv e group, hence the cross-case analys is. As the flow of arrows in diagram 5-1 indicates, the activity systems influe nced the various component concepts, which in turn interacted with the core concept to influe nce the levels at which conceptual and practical tools were appropriated. In the following sections, extensive disc ussions about the core concept and component concepts and their interrelationships will be discussed. Core Concept: Opportunities to Appr opriate Know ledge in Practice The six pre-service teachers, th eir cooperating teachers, their field supervisors, and their course instructors all emphasized the necessity of having opportunities to appropriate knowledge in practice. The partic ipants talked about how having chan ces to implement reading knowledge in classroom settings was crucial to pre-service teacher appropriation of c onceptual and practical tools. The practicum, therefore, emerged as the mo st critical activity syst em. For example, Mrs. Carter described the practicum as being the place where pre-service teachers really learn to teach. The opportunity to appropr iate knowledge in practice he lped the pre-service teachers realize the relevance and importan ce of their reading coursework. As Instructor D indicated, the pre-service teachers did not always appreciate the Emergent Lite racy course content until they had to implement this knowledge in classrooms. Colleen, Melanie, and Kristy all spoke about how learning phonics during Emergent Literacy seemed unimportant and demeaning until they had to draw on this knowledge to instruct st ruggling readers. Kristy spoke about how her practicum experience helped her gauge her comma nd of the knowledge from her coursework and UFLI training. For some pre-service teachers, the pract icum and its opportunities to appropriate conceptual and practical tools in practice seemed to signify the point during the PROTEACH program at which their coursework knowledge st arted to coalesce into a meaningful body of

PAGE 141

141 knowledge and as Mrs. Carter stated where [the y] really learn[ed] to teach. For these preservice teachers, positiv e interactions between (a) opportunitie s to appropriate conceptual and practical tools in practice and (b) component concepts seemed to be associated with higher levels of appropriation. Unfortunately, not all pre-servi ce teachers had such positive experiences when it came to opportunities to appropria te conceptual and practical to ols in practice. The negative interactions experienced by some pre-service teachers appeared to have a detrimental effect on the levels to which their appropr iation of tools could occur. A number of factors, both positive and negative, determined the extent to which the preservice teachers had opportunities to appropriate their tools in practice. These factors emerged as the predominant influences characterizing the practicum activity system. First, the grade level in which a pre-service teacher was pl aced greatly influenced the areas of reading she could observe and teach. For example, Anitas practicum in a third grade classroom meant she had multiple opportunities to teach vocabulary and comprehension, but fewer chances to teach phonics or phonemic awareness. As a result, Anita felt more confident in her abili ties to teach vocabulary and comprehension. Furthermore, Anitas inte rview statements indicated her knowledge of vocabulary and comprehension was more sophi sticated than her knowledge of phonics and phonemic awareness. The opposite was true fo r Colleen who primarily taught phonics and phonemic awareness to Kindergartners as opposed to vocabulary and comprehension Second, the service delivery model employed in the practicum and what participants were allowed to do within the model influenced the participants opport unities to appropriate conceptual and practical tools. Participants in inclusive classrooms reported having fewer opportunities to observe special education acco mmodations and intensiv e reading instruction compared to the participants who were placed in resource rooms or push-in, pull-out models.

PAGE 142

142 Melanie reported that pulling sma ll groups of students for intens ive reading instruction helped her understand the reading proce ss and the specific struggles some students encounter when learning to read. Colleen, Melanie, and Tricia all delivered intensive, targeted reading instruction to small groups of struggling readers because th eir practicum placements used pull-out models for reading. Anita, Kristy, and Nancy, however, taught in inclusive classroo ms where instruction was not differentiated. Although they had some opportunities to work with small groups of students, the instruction was not individualized or intensive. The third influence and, according to the da ta, the most important was the cooperating teacher. Colleen, Melanie, and Tricia had multiple opportunities to observe systematic reading instruction because they were paired with c ooperating teachers who had extensive knowledge of special education and the instructional needs of students with disabilities. Cooperating teachers paired with Colleen, Melanie, a nd Tricia were able to provide feedback that was specific to explicit, systematic reading in struction and behavior management, thus Colleen, Melanie, and Tricia were the only pre-service teachers that appropriated tools conc erning phonics instruction and specific behavior management plans. Anita, Kristy, and Nancy were paired with general educators who had less knowledge about disabilitie s and special educatio n reading instruction, thus the feedback they received focused more on general reading knowle dge and instructional practices such as instructional paci ng and the use of specific feedback. Furthermore, Anita and Nancy reported they did not receive sufficient feedback of any kind. Anita stated her cooperating teacher did not observe her inst ruction on a regular basis and Nancy said the feedback she received did not pi npoint ways she could improve her instruction. For both Anita and Nancy the lack of consistent, qua lity feedback appeared to impact their scores on the RISE negatively because their scores did not improve like those of the other pre-service

PAGE 143

143 teachers who reported they received adequate feedback both before and after teaching a lesson. With the exception of Kristy, the participants who received sufficient feedback and support received the highest scores on the RISE. As will be discussed later, it seemed some of Kristys personal qualities im peded her progress. A final cooperating teacher characteristic th at impacted the pr e-service teachers opportunities to appropriate their knowledge was the extent to which cooperating teachers provided pre-service teachers with teaching opportunities. Nancy documented having few opportunities to teach reading. Similarly, Tricia described how for se veral weeks at the beginning of her practicum she had to sit back an d watch Mrs. Taylors in struction because Mrs. Taylor hesitated turning over the class to a pr e-service teacher. Although both Nancy and Tricia had opportunities to observe thei r cooperating teachers instructi on, this was not as meaningful or insightful as when they delivered instructi on themselves. Over time, Tricia was given more teaching responsibilities, thus she reported an increase in self-efficacy, but unfortunately, for Nancy, her limited chances to teach reading seemed to be associated with diminishing levels of self-efficacy concerning struggling read ers and students with disabilities. The fourth factor affecti ng pre-service teachers opport unities to appropriate their knowledge was student characteristics, specifica lly students cultural and economic backgrounds and the pre-service teachers pe rceptions of cultural mismatches between themselves and their students. Nancy and Tricia spoke about how th eir backgrounds did not match those of their students, thus having negative re percussions on their instructi on. Nancy explained how she was unsure how to address the specific needs of her students, all of whom were African American and came from low-income homes. Nancys uncer tainties affected her self-efficacy negatively, thus leading to behavior manage ment problems, which derailed her reading instruction. Tricia

PAGE 144

144 talked about how she did not know how to help students from low SES ho mes, stating I found it difficult to relate to [kids from low SES homes] and I started feeling like maybe I am not the best person to reach [them], whereas I can relate to the kids who have parents who are involved (9.11.07). Curriculum was the final influence on pre-se rvice teachers opport unities to appropriate their knowledge in practice. Anita and Kristy were placed in practicum experiences that utilized the district adopted basal readi ng series, thus they had more freedom in their lesson planning. The reading basal, however, was not designed for struggling reader s specifically and therefore, Anita and Kristy did not have many opportunities to enact sy stematic, explicit reading instruction. Nancys placement used the basal re ading series in conjunction with the Success for All (SFA) program. The result was that Nancy wa s limited in her freedom to plan lessons and she did not observe systematic, explicit reading instruction. Nancy talked about how she did not get to implement many of the tools she learne d in her reading methods courses due to the confining curriculum. Colleen, Melanie, and Tricia, on the other ha nd, used the direct instruction, scripted Reading Mastery curriculum, and as a result, th ey all reported having little freedom in their lesson planning. For example, Melanie noted that Reading Mastery took away from her creativity. Tricia never took credit for any lesson planning due to the cons traints of the Reading Mastery program and the inflexibility of her cooperating teachers rout ines and procedures. Although they had little voice in what and how they taught, Colleen, Mela nie, and Tricia all learned how to implement instruc tion using a curriculum that is designed to meet the needs of students with disabilities. The supportive structure of the Reading Mastery curriculum facilitated their instruction, perhaps helping them reach hi gher scores on the RISE. For example, the

PAGE 145

145 Reading Mastery script prompted the pre-servic e teachers to provide students with specific feedback, give students plentiful opportunitie s to respond, and include both guided and independent practice. In the end, Colleen, Melanie, and Tricia a ll supported the use of Reading Mastery despite its scripted nature because of the progress they observed in their students. Although the opportunity to appropriate know ledge in practice emerged as the most important, or core concept, three other component concepts (a) personal qualities, (b) motivation for knowledge assimilation, and (c) access to knowle dge also affected the pre-service teachers appropriation of conceptual and practical tool s. In the following sections, these component concepts and their interactions are discussed in detail. Component Concept: Personal Qualities The com ponent concept of personal qualities was comprised of several elements, including personal attributes, academic ability, fu ture goals, personal concerns, and beliefs. At the most basic level, personal qualities are inte rnal characteristics that contribute to a persons individuality. Data showed that all three activity systems influenced the per-service teachers personal qualities. Personal qualities impacted appropriation of co nceptual and practical tools in both positive and negative ways. In general, positive personal attributes such as reflectiveness, dedication, and initiative seemed to facilitate tool appropria tion to higher levels. Pre-service teachers whose future goals aligned with thei r practicum also experienced gr eater success with appropriation. Pre-service teachers whose concer ns centered on the academic needs of their students seemed to reach higher appropriation levels. Fi nally, the ways in which beliefs interacted with opportunities to appropriate knowledge in practi ce determined the extent to which the pre-service teachers beliefs changed. An in-depth discussion of these personal qualities and how they interacted with the other component concepts and th e core concept is provided below.

PAGE 146

146 Personal Attributes In this sec tion, the role of personal attributes, including personality dispositions and academic ability will be discussed in light of the pre-se rvice teachers appropriation of tools. For Colleen and Melanie, personality dispositions pl ayed a positive role in their appropriation of tools. Both Colleen and Melanie showed initia tive during their practicum placements, actively seeking help and answers to thei r questions, thus facilitating th eir instruction and appropriation of tools. For Nancy, aspects of her personality did not help her overcome a difficult practicum situation. Nancy felt her practicum students were pa rticularly difficult to manage. Her lack of confidence and timidity often compounded her difficulties managing classroom behavior, and this seemed to color her perceptions of herself. Thus, Nancy had few positive teaching experiences during her practicum. In the case of Nancy, her personality dispositions coupled with a negative practicum appeared to accentuate her lack of confidence for her own abilities. For the rest of the participants, personal at tributes, including persona lity dispositions and academic ability played a either positive or ne gative role in appropr iation of practical and conceptual tools, mostly because of how they in teracted with the practicum and its opportunities to appropriate knowledge in practice. Kristys difficulties under standing reading coupled with a practicum that lacked explicit, systematic instru ction often limited her a ppropriation of tools. For example, interview and observation data indicate d Kristy did not appropriate conceptual or practical tools about irregular words. During interviews, Kristy often confused irregular and regular words. Observation data showed that Kr istys lack of appropria tion concerning irregular words impacted her instruction negatively. In seve ral lessons, Kristy instructed students to sound out irregular words. When student s tried to decode the irregula r words, they became frustrated because the words they produced did not make sens e. Kristy was also frustrated because she was unsure how to help them. Kristys reflectiven ess and open acceptance of feedback, however,

PAGE 147

147 simultaneously played a more pos itive role in her learning. Kris ty knew when her lessons were not successful and she readily welcomed any f eedback that would help her improve. In an interview Kristy maintained her lessons were mo re effective when she incorporated feedback from her field supervisor or cooperating t eacher. Anita was organized, systematic, and a dedicated student, attributes that supported her learning, but her inflexibility and rigidity made it difficult for her to adapt to cl assroom changes, often impacting her instruction negatively. For example, during one observation, Anita planned to ask students comprehension questions in a guided reading group. After spending an extensiv e period of time asking questions, the students became less engaged and off task. Instead of changing the activity when students became disengaged, Anita continued with the pre-planne d activity of asking comprehension questions until the students misbehavior escalat ed and the lesson was disrupted. In general, the presence of positive personal attributes, such as reflectiveness, openmindedness, and initiative facilita ted pre-service teach ers learning, whereas a lack of such attributes hindered knowledge appropriation. More over, the presence or absence of certain attributes was not as important as the interactio n of personal attributes with the practicum. This interaction might have been the key to understanding the role of personal attributes on preservice teacher appropri ation of conceptual and practical tools. Personal Concerns and Future Goals In addition to personal attributes, the personal concerns and future goa ls of the pre-service teachers also im pacted their tool appropriation. So me of the pre-service teachers had concerns about their relationship with thei r students. Colleen and Tricia wa nted students to like them and have fun in school. Colleens desire to be li ked by her students seemed to influence her willingness to discipline students. During initial ob servations, Colleen adopted an informal tone with students, often giggling at their misbehaviors rather than correcting them. As a result of

PAGE 148

148 these management issues, Colleen spent more tim e attending to student behavior as opposed to considering how she might deliver effective read ing instruction. Tricias concern centered on making reading instruction enjoyable. Tricia wa s hypercritical of her placement because she did not feel the instruction was fun for students. Although she attested to the power of direct instruction programs like Reading Mastery for stude nts with disabilities, when asked about her future plans for teaching reading, Tricia focused more on her future goal as a general educator and how she would make reading fun for the students in her classroom. For example, she spoke about giving students silent i ndependent reading time with enj oyable books and structuring her reading instruction around a readers workshop model. So, while Tricias instruction improved while using Reading Mastery, it is unclear that her beliefs will support the use of structured instruction in the future. Kristy and Melanie expressed concern over pr oviding students with effective instruction. Kristy talked about wanting to know her st udents instructional needs and giving them instruction with the lightening speed they need. Although Kristy struggled to deliver effective reading instruction, her concerns about providing students with proper instruction fostered a willingness to dedicate extra time in her practicum in order to improve her instruction. Melanie spoke about the importance of givi ng students with disabilities the r ight kind of instruction so they could receive reading inst ruction in the general education classroom eventually. Melanie was open to challenging teaching situations becau se she knew they would help her become a better teacher. She spent extra hou rs learning the letter sounds a nd the proper Reading Mastery procedures so she could deliver intensive reading lessons to students. Melanie and Kristys desire to be special educators and provide students with effective instruction fostered a commitment to improving their teaching.

PAGE 149

149 Nancys perceived inability to assert herself with students and her concerns about her capabilities to handle the behaviors of student s from low income homes colored her image of herself as a teacher for this popul ation. After battling classroom ma nagement issues, with little support to acquire new skills in this area, Nancy felt defeated and inefficacious. Unfortunately, she left her practicum questioning her knowledg e and her teaching skills for teaching all students. Beliefs Pre-service teachers also entered their pr acticum equipped with personal beliefs about special education and reading inst ruction for students with disabilities. The ways in which these beliefs interacted with the practicum experience played a role in how incoming beliefs were substantiated or abandoned. Three pre-service teachers, Colleen, Kristy, a nd Melanie, reported changes in their beliefs as a result of participating in their practicum ex periences. At first, Colleen and Melanie believed the best service delivery model for students with disabilities was a self-contained classroom. However, after seeing how successf ul students could be in inclus ive classrooms that utilized push-in and pull-out models, both pre-service teachers remonstrated their earlier beliefs and instead adopted pro-inclusion beliefs. Before completing her practicum, Kristy believed in a holistic approach to reading instruction. Howeve r, after observing the ne gative influence of a whole language approach on the reading abilities of her students, Kristy abandoned her holistic reading beliefs in favor of explicit, systematic reading instruction. She knew that without such instruction students with di sabilities would struggle. Anitas beliefs were also strengthened as a result of her practicum experience, but in a different way. Anita began her practicum experi ence believing that students with disabilities needed explicit, individualized instruction. Her beliefs were only strengthened when she

PAGE 150

150 observed students with disabilities struggling due to a lack of explicit reading instruction that targeted their individual needs. Anita said I have seen how in the class I was in this semester there was a lot of cooperative reading activities but the actual reading instruction was not as explicit as I feel it should have been. I think [reading instruction] needs to be more explicit, giving more examples, or actually modeling reading tasks before le tting kids go out and try it (12.11.07). Component Concept: Motivation for Know ledge Assimilation In this study, the pre-service teachers had varying motivations for assimilating knowledge, with some motivations leading to higher levels of appropriation. Based on statements made during interviews, the pre-service teachers motivations could be categorized as either extrinsic or intrinsic. The pre-service teachers intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for learning stemmed from all three activity systems. In gene ral, when pre-service teachers had intrinsic reasons for assimilating knowledge, they reached higher levels of tool appropriation. Below are descriptions of how the pre-serv ice teachers extrinsic and intrin sic motivations were influenced by the activity systems and how these motivations interacted with the other component concepts in the grounded theory. Accountability measures in place at the university and the practicum, such as exams, course assignments, and teaching opportunities, provided pre-service teac hers with motivation for assimilating knowledge. In the case of the university, the pre-servi ce teachers motivations stemmed from course requirements, motivations that were fueled by the extrinsic reward of earning a passing grade in the course. As a resu lt, Colleen, Kristy, and Melanie learned phonics to earn a good grade in their Emergent Literacy course, but they were not motivated to draw on this knowledge because they did no t see how it was useful. It was not until they were responsible for reading instruction in their practicum experiences that they developed more intrinsic reasons for assimilating phonics knowledge. In an interview, Colleen said, it took me a while to realize

PAGE 151

151 [learning phonics] was important. No w in my practicum I think what does /x/ say? Did I say it right (10.11.07)? Kristy said, I want to be able to [teach reading] with the lightening speed [students] need I dont want to be standing up there thinking and c onfused (10.19.07). Once Colleen, Kristy, and Melanie were motivated to learn information, even when it was not a course requirement, they valued their coursework conten t more, spent more time trying to learn it, and began to understand it on conceptual levels. In addition to university and practicum in fluences, individual experiences impacted participants motivations to appropriate tools. An ita, Colleen, and Nancy all had family and prior experiences that fostered a desire to become special educators. Colleen and Nancy both had siblings with disabilities. Witnessing their brothe rs struggles in school, es pecially struggles that were heightened by teachers inability to meet their brothers needs fostered Colleen and Nancys desire to be effective special edu cators. For Colleen, an encouraging placement intensified her commitment to the field of special education, but for Nancy, a discouraging placement squelched her confidence to be a teacher, much less a special educator. Anita did not have a sibling with a di sability but she did have a mother who successfully included students in her classroom. Seeing the success students with disabilities experien ced in her mothers classroom fostered Anitas drive to help students with disabilities. So when met with a less than successful practicum placement Anita only became stronger in her resolve to be a quality special educator. For Tricia, individual influences played out differently. Tricia was motivated by both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards. Tricia chose special education as a major because of the possibility of earning more money, but money was not her only motivation. She believed knowledge of special education techniques would improve her sk ill as a general educator.

PAGE 152

152 According to Tricia, special education sparked my interest because it was a way to gain more knowledge to help every learner (9.11.07). Although Tricia professe d a desire to learn reading strategies to help all learners, she seemed more motivated to make reading instruction fun when she had her own classroom. She di d not acknowledge in interviews how she must continue to use explicit, systematic instruction as it was in the be st interest of her student s. Tricia was motivated to assimilate conceptual and prac tical tools associated with reading instruction for students with disabilities because she had little to no choice in delivering other techniques in her practicum. Although Tricia had some of the highest scores on the RISE and observation and interview evidence revealed she ap propriated tools about r eading instruction and behavior management to higher levels, it is uncertain whether she will ever reach the level of mastery in appropriating explicit, systematic instructional tools. Instead, she may choose to focus exclusively on implementing instruction that students find fun. Component Concept: Access to Knowledge The final component that affected the pre-service teachers appropriation of conceptual and practical tools was access. Without access to tools, the pre-service teachers could not appropriate them. Like motivation to assimila te knowledge, access to knowledge is another component concept that was influenced by all thr ee activity systems. Some pre-service teachers had prior experiences that provided them with access to knowledge. Other pre-service teachers had cooperating teachers who had extensive knowl edge of special education, serving as a valuable source of knowledge. Finally, some pre-service teachers reported having reading methods courses and field supervisors that helped them acquire knowledge. The individual activity system influenced pre-service teachers knowledge access, but it did so in limited ways. None of the partic ipants reported having ex tensive early reading memories. All of the pre-service teachers described how surprised they were when they realized

PAGE 153

153 learning to read and teaching students to read is hard. Colleen best summarized the group sentiment when she said, Most of us in colleg e probably learned to r ead [easily]. You would have no idea how many kids didnt [have an easy time]. I had no clue, I ju st thought reading was a natural process and that ever yone learns to read (12.05.07). Similarly, with the exception of Anita, none of the pre-service teachers spoke about extensive prior experiences with special educat ion. Colleen, Melanie, an d Tricia all attended K12 schools that utilized self-contained service delive ry models, thus they did not witness special education students being included in general education classroo ms, nor did they observe any accommodations or individualized instruction. As a result, they relied heavily on reading methods courses, special education courses, fi eld experiences, and prac ticum placements for their special edu cation knowledge. As stated before, an important influence of the practicum was the cooperating teacher. Cooperating teachers who had extensive knowledge of special education reading instruction served as greater sources of access for pre-se rvice teachers compared to cooperating teachers who had limited knowledge of th ese topics. In some practicum placements, other school personnel also served as sour ces of knowledge. Colleen, for example, appropriated several accommodations for students with disabilities from observing a general education teacher. Various curricula provided access to knowledge unique to special education. From their use of Reading Mastery, Colleen, Melani e, and Tricia appropriated c onceptual and practical tools related to special education r eading instruction, particularly modeling, plentiful opportunities for students to respond, extensive guided practice, and specific feedback. All pre-service teachers ha d access to knowledge from the university, though sources of this knowledge varied. The field supervisor was vi ewed positively across the six participants. All

PAGE 154

154 the pre-service teachers reported that feedback provided by field supervisor s was a useful source of knowledge, even though the us ability of this feedback va ried. Nancy and Tricia both experienced barriers to implementing field s upervisors feedback because of practicum experiences. For Nancy, a challenging classroom management setting and limited opportunities to teach presented barriers, and for Tricia the inflexibility of her cooperating teacher constrained opportunities to interject new ideas into instruction. Kristy, however, experienced a different situation. Kristys practicum provided her freedom to incorporate feedback. Moreover, Kristys open-mindedness and desire to improve meant she sought feedback as often as possible and was amenable to constructive criticism. This feedback was particularly im portant because Kristy, who often struggled to provide students with clear, intensive reading instruction, stated she experienced greater success when she integrated th e field supervisors feedback into her lessons. Participants consistently viewed UFLI tr aining as a positive so urce of knowledge yet, they sometimes did not experience its full benefi ts due to time constraints. Tricia and Nancy explained that their UFLI tutoring times conflic ted with other elements of their practicum experiences. Tricias UFLI tutoring time was s andwiched between two reading groups in her practicum, thus she always felt rushed to be where she was needed. The result was that Tricia did not have time to reflect on her UFLI instructi on before she had to hurry to meet her reading groups. Nancys tutoring time occurred during Mrs. Nells planning time, therefore, Nancy missed opportunities to plan with Mrs. Nell and receive feedback on he r instruction in the practicum. The two pre-service teachers who reported the most posi tive experiences with UFLI tutoring also reported having prac ticum experiences that facilitated their implementation of strategies acquired during tutori ng. Colleen and Kristy both had time to implement UFLI tutoring

PAGE 155

155 while attending to other practicum teaching resp onsibilities. Colleen felt her UFLI tutoring provided additional exposure to phonics knowle dge and enabled her to make instructional decisions for her tutee. For Kristy, the UFLI tutoring was helpful because its structure and consistency facilitated her enactment of begi nning reading instructi on in the classroom. Specific courses, as well as instructors assi gned to those courses influenced pre-service teachers access to strategies and ideas in both positive and negative ways. Colleen, Melanie, and Nancy perceived their literacy coursework negati vely. Nancy said she felt overwhelmed after finishing Emergent Literacy because so much content was covered. For Nancy, her feelings of being overwhelmed were exacerbated by her negative practicum experience, where she had few opportunities to appropriate knowledg e from the Emergent Literacy course. Colleen and Melanie also felt they gained littler from their cour sework, but gave different reasons for their unsatisfactory experiences. They thought their Em ergent Literacy course was disorganized and did not provide sufficient justific ation for learning phonics. Going fu rther, Melanie stated, I felt I got a major disservice because I did not learn that much about reading (9.12.07). Colleen and Melanie felt that the information acquired in th e Emergent Literacy course would have faded from memory if they did not have a practicum that helped them draw upon this knowledge to teach students with disabilities. Comparatively, Anita, Kristy, a nd Tricia all expressed gratit ude for their reading methods coursework. For Tricia, her Emergent Literacy course was especially beneficial because of Instructor As caring personality. Tricia also li ked her Intermediate Reading class and described how she used many of the strategies from this course in a prior field experience. Tricia desperately wanted to implement her Emergent Literacy knowledge but experienced barriers when placed in an inflexible practicum. Sim ilarly, Anita and Kristy spoke about feeling

PAGE 156

156 frustrated when they could not appropriate their reading coursework knowledge in their practicum experiences. Thus, the pr e-service teachers perceptions of their university courses and course instructors interacted with their opportunities to appropriate knowledge, affecting the extent to which they appropriated conceptual and practical tools. Summary The grounded theory presented in this chapte r emerged after the researcher completed a cross-case analysis of six special education preservice teachers provid ing reading instruction during a practicum placement. The three activity systems (ie. individual, university, and practicum) influenced the core concept and component concepts. Opportunities to appropriate knowledge in prac tice emerged as the core concept, and its reciprocal relationship with the three component concepts (a) personal qu alities, (b) motivation for knowledge assimilation, and (c) access to knowledge seemed to play a role in the levels to which pre-service teachers appropriated conceptual and practical tools. Although the core concept and component conc epts all influenced what pre-service teachers did in the classroom or how they cons tructed knowledge, the exte nt of their influence and direction of the influence vari ed across participants. In the best case, the concepts worked in positive ways, thus facilitating pre-service teachers tool appropriation and knowledge acquisition. In this instance the in teraction of positive personal attributes, a future goal as a special educator, and a supportiv e special education practicum experience with plentiful opportunities to appropriat e explicit, systematic reading knowledge in pr actice facilitated tool appropriation. In the worst case, the concepts worked in negative ways, thus hindering preservice teachers appropria tion of conceptual and practical tools. In this case, the interaction of personal qualities with a general education practicum experien ce that afforded few opportunities

PAGE 157

157 to appropriate explicit, systematic readi ng instruction hindered pre-service teachers appropriation of read ing tools for students with disabilities.

PAGE 158

158 Table 5-1. Influences on appropriation of conceptu al and practical tools Activity systems Influences The individual Prior experiences Family characteristics Prior beliefs Personal attributes or dispositions Cultural background The university Course instructors Reading coursework Assessment coursework Behavior management coursework UFLI training Field supervisors The practicum Grade level Service delivery model Cooperating teacher knowledge Cooperating teacher feedback Instructional freedom Opportunities to teach Students cultural & economic background Classroom management Other school personnel Students disability Curriculum

PAGE 159

159 Figure 5-1. Pre-service teacher appropriation of conceptu al and practical tools. Influence of the Individual Examples: personal attributes, prior experiences, family characteristics Influence of University Examples: UFLI, field supervisors, coursework Influence of Practicum Examples: cooperating teacher, service delivery model, instructional freedom Personal Qualities Motivation for Knowledge Assimilation Access to Knowledge Opportunities to Appropriate Knowledge in practice

PAGE 160

160 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS The purpose of this chapter is to report how the findings fr om the current study support the existing literature and how they extend it. Also included in this chapter are implications for the research community, teacher educators, and school-based personnel concerning special education teacher preparation. Discussion This study and findings generated support schola rs claims that res earch elucidating the complexities of teacher education is important (Zeichner, 2005; Zeichner & Conklin, 2005). The findings from this study confirm prior studies of teacher preparation that found great variability within preparation programs at the level of the individual preservice teacher (Boyd et al., 2006; Humphrey & Wechsler, 2005; Kennedy, 1991; Weng linsky, 2000). Although all six pre-service teachers completed the same preparation program, dramatic differences between participants and within the program itself led to vastly different outcomes across the six pre-service teachers. In this study, teacher preparation made a difference for all of the participants, but the ways in which it mattered varied and cannot be reduced to a si mple equation, thus corroborating assertions made by Boyd et al. (2006) and Humphrey and W echsler (2005) who surmis ed that participants experience programs differently. Although a plethora of individua l influences emerged from this study, four appeared to be most significant (a) opportunities to appropriate knowledge in pract ice, (b) personal qualities, (c) motivation for knowledge assimilation, (d) access to knowledge. In fact, interactions of these four influences had the most explanatory power when it came to understanding how activity systems impacted per-service teach er appropriation of conceptual and practical tools. In this section, findings are discussed in light of previous literature.

PAGE 161

161 Opportunities to Appropriat e Know ledge in Practice First, participants in this study, includi ng the pre-service teac hers, their cooperating teachers, field supervisors, and reading methods course instructors all atte sted to the importance of opportunities to appropriate knowledge in prac tice. When pre-service teachers had successful practical opportunities to appropr iate their knowledge, they felt mo re confident and prepared to teach students. They also reported their reading knowledge was most influenced by practical teaching experiences. For example, the pre-servi ce teachers in this study benefited from tutoring struggling readers using the UFLI program. The pa rticipants described how UFLI training helped them understand the reading process, address students reading struggles, and implement practical tools related to begi nning reading instruction. These findings are supported in prior research demonstrating pre-serv ice teachers need opportunities to apply knowledge in practical settings such as tutoring e xperiences (Duffy and Atkinson, 2001; Fang & Ashley, 2004; IRA, 2003; Linek et al., 1999). One reason why pre-service teachers in this st udy valued practicum experiences and field experiences is that they acqui red practical tools. This findi ng is not surprising given what Grossman et al. (2000) learned when they follo wed pre-service teachers into their first three years of teaching. Grossman and her colleagues found that beginning teac hers needed access to concrete teaching strategies. Without such strate gies, teachers had difficulty turning conceptual tools into practical ones. The practicum emerged as a key factor in preservice teacher learning, but the results from this study shed light on important differences be tween practicum experien ces. For example, not all practicum experiences provided pre-serv ice teachers with positive opportunities to appropriate their reading knowledge in a safe and productive environment. In other words, participating in a practicum experience did not always translate into a positive learning

PAGE 162

162 experience for pre-service teacher s. Several factors determined the quality of the practicum. First, poorly structured and unfocused practic um experiences caused stress for pre-service teachers and limited their opportunities to appropri ate knowledge in practi ce. Second, qualities of the cooperating teacher influenced the success of a practicum experience. Cooperating teachers who were knowledgeable about special education in fluenced the pre-servi ce teachers in positive ways. These knowledgeable cooperating teachers pr ovided pre-service teac hers with specific feedback about knowledge and st rategies related to reading instruction for students with disabilities. The literature review conducted by Wilson et al. (2001), confirmed these findings. These authors surmised that the best placements are well structured and aligned with university coursework. Additionally, the results of this li terature review documented that cooperating teachers have a significant impact on the quality of a field placement. Personal Qualities Findings from this study indicated that several personal qualities made a difference in how pre-service teachers appropriated tools. Firs t, personal attributes worked in positive and negative ways to influence tool appropriation. One personal attri bute influencing the pre-service teachers was their propensity to be reflective. Preservice teachers who were especially reflective spent time thinking about their instruction in rela tion to their students needs. Other researchers found that pre-service teachers open disposition and tendency to engage in reflection explained their success in field placem ents (Garmon, 2004; Richards & Morse, 2002). Specifically, preservice teachers in these studies were skilled in providing students with di fferentiated instruction. In addition to reflection, self-efficacy emerge d as an influential personal attribute. The majority of pre-service teachers in this study entered their practicum uncertain of their ability to help struggling readers and students with disabi lities. Successful opportu nities to appropriate their knowledge in practice, le d to higher levels of self -efficacy, whereas, unsuccessful

PAGE 163

163 opportunities reduced pre-service teachers sens e of self-efficacy. These findings partially support research by Hoy and Woolfolk (1990) that demonstrated pre-service teachers efficacy increases in some ways but decreases in others These researchers found th at pre-service teachers who completed student teaching were more efficaci ous in their ability to motivate students, but they were less confident in their ability to overcome challenges students from difficult backgrounds presented. To understand the developmen t of efficacy in beginning teachers fully, more research is needed. Other important attributes that emerged in this study included dedication, initiative, and open-mindedness. These and other attributes have been previously supported in the literature. Lessen and Frankiewicz (1992) cond ucted a literature review on attributes of effective special educators and pre-service teachers. They found su ccessful special education pre-service teachers were relentless, aware, alert, and action orient ed. These authors also found that empathetic, warm, and enthusiastic teachers had a positive impact on student gains. In addition to personal attributes, future goals and personal con cerns of pre-service teachers impacted how they appropriated tools. As in previous studies pre-service teachers reasons for entering the profession emerged as im portant influences. In this study, pre-service teachers evaluated incoming knowle dge in relation to their future goals as either general educators or special educators. For example, Tr icia did not feel lear ning a scripted reading program was helpful to her future goal as a gene ral educator. Melanie who wanted to be a special educator, however, valued learning how to deliver explicit intensive phonics instruction because she knew she would be teaching struggling reader s and students with disabilities. Similarly, Grossman and her colleagues (1999) found that pr e-service teachers plac ed varied emphasis on

PAGE 164

164 knowledge acquired from literacy coursework de pending on how this knowledge aligned with their future goals. Pre-service teachers concerns about a variety of issues such as behavior management and student achievement also impacted their appr opriation of practical and conceptual tools. Although all participants in this study had concerns, the nature of those concerns differed. Colleen and Tricia, were particular ly concerned with their relations hips with their students. They placed a heavy emphasis on making learning f un and being liked by students. Nancy felt concerned about her teaching abilit ies, particularly her ability to manage student behaviors. Two participants, Melanie and Kristy, were concerne d about their abilities to deliver effective instruction to students. Such concerns have b een documented widely in the teacher education literature. Several research t eams found that pre-service teac hers are concerned about their relationships with students, their abilities to ma intain student discipline, and their abilities to teach (Berliner, 1988; Brookhart & Freeman, 1992; Fuller, 1969; Kagan, 1992; Pigge & Marso, 1986, 1987, 1990). Finally, pre-service teachers beliefs impacted their appropr iation of tools. Pre-service teachers in this study had strong be liefs that often acted as filt ers through which they evaluated practicum experiences. For example, Anita and Kristy evaluated reading instruction they observed in their practicum expe rience in relation to their own beliefs about how students with disabilities should be taught. Anita believed st udents with disabilities should receive individualized instruction gauged to meet their needs. Anitas beliefs were strengthened when she observed students with disabilities struggle fr om a lack of such instruction. Kristy, on the other hand, believed in a holistic, literature-based approach to reading. Her beliefs changed, however, when she witnessed str uggling readers fall further behind from a lack of intensive,

PAGE 165

165 systematic, and explicit instruction. Hence, inter actions between individual pre-service teachers and their practicum experiences seemed to explain why some pre-service teachers beliefs changed while others did not. This finding partially supports existing resear ch that investigates the conditions under which teacher beliefs change. Extant research has sh own that a variety of variables influence teacher candidates belief s including (a) candidates propensity toward reflection, (b) the nature of cooperating teacher a nd field supervisor feedback, (c) the extent to which candidates observed classroom instruction without receiving correc tive feedback, and (d) the extent to which preparation programs encour aged teacher candidates to examine their beliefs (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990; Kagan, 1992; Munby, 1982; Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996; Richardson & Placier, 2001). Motivation for Knowledge Assimilation In this study, it seems that motivation for knowledge assim ilation operated in different ways. One set of motivational beliefs influen ced participants reasons for becoming special educators. Several pre-service teachers were driven by their intrinsic motivation to help all students and in particular, students with disa bilities. A second set of motivational beliefs influenced what pre-service teachers learned. For example, Colleen and Melanie exhibited no motivation to develop a deep working knowledge of phonics during their Emergent Literacy course, possibly because they did not see the relevance of learning such information. Upon entering their practicum placements, however, Coll een and Melanie became more motivated to appropriate literacy tools from their coursework because they saw the necessity of such tools when trying to provide explicit, systematic phoni cs instruction to students with disabilities. These findings align with Brophys (1999) mode l of motivation for accomplishing tasks in education. Under this model, lear ners are motivated to learn wh en they perceive tasks are

PAGE 166

166 neither too easy or too hard (Brophy, 1999, p. 77) a nd when they perceive tasks as relevant and valuable. Access to Knowledge Pre-service teachers access to useable knowle dge em erged as an important influence on their learning. Coursework cont ent, and perhaps more importan tly course instructors, were sources of knowledge. After interviewing the read ing methods course instructors and reviewing the course syllabi, it was clear that the PROTEACH reading methods courses were designed to deepen pedagogical content knowledge. For exampl e, the Emergent Literacy course taught preservice teachers the five components of read ing, including ways to teach them to children. Similarly, other researchers have found that effective preparation programs and coursework are designed to deepen pedagogical content know ledge (Darling-Hammond, 2000; National Center for Research on Teacher Learning, 1991). When pr e-service teachers had access to coursework content that provided them with pr actical tools that they perceive d as useful, they valued that knowledge more and showed a proclivity towards appropriating it in th eir practicum. Some students rejected phonics knowledge because they did not like it or see the value in it. The quality of course instruct or also seemed to be an im portant factor in pre-service teachers perceptions of coursework content. Pre-service teachers who had skilled organized course instructors valued their coursework more than pre-service teacher s who felt their course instructors were disorganized and unclear. This finding some what supports social science research that links undergraduates course ev aluations with their perceptions of course instructors. The social science research indicated that course instructors: (a) teaching style, either lenient or strict, (b) likeability, (c) rappor t with students, (d) organization, and (e) grading practices affected students overa ll perceptions of the course (Beran & Violato, 2005; Jirovec, Ramanathan, & Alvarez, 1998; Smith & Anderson, 2005).

PAGE 167

167 Limitations As discussed in chapter 1, there are se veral aspects of the study that limit the generalizability and interpretation of the findings. First, the participants in this study attended a Research Intensive university with high academ ic standards and the schools in which they completed their practicum experiences were located in a mid-size school dist rict in north Central Florida, thus the findings cannot be generalized to the larger popul ation of special education preservice teachers. Furthermore, the pre-service teachers in th e study worked with elementary students with mild disabilities, therefore these findings may not apply to pre-service teachers who worked with secondary students or students with more severe disabilities. Finally, the participants were chosen based on selection crit eria and their willingness to participate in the study. With a limited sample size, it was inevitab le that some pre-service teachers would be excluded from the study. Second, the study did not follow the pre-se rvice teachers beyond one semester of coursework and practicum. The data, therefore, only provided glimpses into the pre-service teachers appropriation of tools over a limited amount of time. It is unclear whether these findings will remain accurate once the pre-servi ce teachers enter into full time teaching positions. Furthermore, the studys limited time frame makes it difficult to understand fully the bidirectional relationship between the core c oncept and component concepts. For example, opportunities to appropriate knowledge in practi ce during the practicum may influence preservice teachers future motivations for knowledge assimilation, but without following preservice teachers beyond one semester, it is difficult to know for certain. Last, it is difficult to assess how pre-servic e teachers appropriate tools, particularly conceptual ones. When used collectively, proxie s such as the prior beliefs and experiences survey, observation field notes, and concept maps s eemed to capture an accurate picture of the

PAGE 168

168 participants appropriation, but a ny potential problems with thes e proxies could influence the interpretation of the findings. Despite these limitations, the findings from this study offer information for preparing special education teachers and conduc ting research on this population. Implications Findings from this study indicate that spec ial education pre-service teacher appropriation of conceptual and practical tool s related to reading is depende nt on interactions between the individual and the social context activity system s. More specifically, it was the interaction of four concepts (a) opportunities to appropriate kno wledge in practice, (b) personal qualities, (c) motivation for knowledge assimilation, and (d) access to knowledge that mediated the preservice teachers appropri ation of pedagogical tools. These findings have implications for future practice and research in special education. Implications for Future Research in Special Education Teacher Preparation The results of this study s uggest that activity theory might be a viable framework for future investigations in special education teach er education. Activity theory not only accounts for various influences on teacher lear ning, but it also sheds light on w hy teachers appropriate tools at different levels. It is a model that examines learning from soci al and individual levels, thus considering the myriad of complexities that characterize a special education context. Should special education teacher educators chose to use activity theory to frame future studies, they will need to pay close attention to influences like service delivery model, di sability, curriculum, and cooperating teacher knowledge of special education. While thes e factors might not wield as much influence in studies of general education pre-service teachers, they are significant for special educators. Though the grounded theory methods used in this study produced an explanatory model of special education pre-service teacher appropriation of conceptual and practical tools, the

PAGE 169

169 employment of other research designs would paint a more complete picture of pre-service teacher learning. Social constructionist methods would offer a comprehensive understanding of how pre-service teachers and their course instruct ors, field supervisors, and cooperating teachers construct knowledge jointly. Discourse analysis methods could provide information about the types of dialogue in teacher educ ation that impact the appropria tion of pedagogical tools. Largescale experimental and quasi-experimental st udies could explain the effects of various preparation experiences on pre-serv ice teachers appropriation of t ools. Finally, studies of special education pre-service teachers w ho work with secondary students or students with more severe disabilities would reveal additional influe nces that researchers should consider. Finally, the current study inve stigated outcomes related to special education pre-service teacher appropriation of tools, but this is onl y one of many potential te acher education outcomes in need of attention. As argued by Cochran-Sm ith (2001), one important outcome of teacher education is long-term impact, which has to do w ith the effects of teacher education over time. Specifically, long-term impact examines pre-serv ice teachers practice upon entering the field and the achievement of their students. Relating the findings of the curr ent study to assertions made by Cochran-Smith leads to several unanswered questions. At the most basic level, what are the long-term impacts of teacher education? Is th ere evidence that teacher education continues to influence teachers once they exit preparation programs? Will the four concepts that emerged in this study continue to influence teachers appr opriation of tools once they become teachers of record? If so, in what ways? As teachers of record are there other influences that play a role in the appropriation of tools? What are the long-term effects of pe rsonal qualities on teachers? For example, will pre-service teachers who are natura lly reflective have an easier time appropriating tools in the future? Once pre-se rvice teachers are responsible fo r students achievement on high

PAGE 170

170 stakes tests, will their motivation for knowledge assimilation be affected? Finally, how does the appropriation of conceptual and practical tools during preparation impact student achievement? Implications for Special Education Teacher P reparation a nd Current Practice in Schools The findings generated from this study high light several aspects of special education teacher preparation that are important for teach er educators to consider as they prepare prospective teachers. First, as has been found in previous studies, pre-service teachers entered the PROTEACH program with little existing knowledge or experi ences concerning special education or students with disabilitie s (Green & Weaver, 1992; Puga ch, 2005; Terrill & Mark, 2000). While general education pre-se rvice teachers may have extensive background knowledge about teaching and learning for general education stude nts, special education pre-service teachers prior knowledge about special education will most likely be limited. Moreover, the findings from this study showed that special education pre-se rvice teachers incoming beliefs are formulated based on their K-12 schooling experiences, which pr edated large-scale inclusion models. Several of the pre-service teachers ente red their practicum experiences supporting the use of selfcontained service delivery models, as was used in their K-12 schools. Special education teacher educators should be aware that a practicum experi ence that revealed the benefits of inclusive models seemed to sway the pre-service teachers beliefs in favor of inclusive practices. This finding supports research on genera l educators beliefs and attit udes about inclusion (Giangreco, Dennis, Cloninger, Edelman, & Schattman, 1993; Minke, Bear, Deemer, & Griffin, 1996; McLeskey, Waldron, So, Swanson, & Loveland, 2001; Waldron, McLeskey, & Pacciano, 1999). These researchers found that gene ral educators held favorable be liefs about inclusive practices after having direct, sustained contac t with students with disabilities. Second, it seems experiences pre-service teach ers value most are practical because they acquire practical tools. The UFLI training and tutoring component was particularly helpful for

PAGE 171

171 the special education pre-serv ice teachers. As has been f ound in the literature, tutoring experiences that provide pre-serv ice teachers with opportunities to work with struggling readers are particularly meaningful a nd beneficial (Duffy & Atkinson, 2001; Nierstheimer, Hopkins, & Dillon, 2000). The participants in this study valued the opportunity UFLI gave them to make instructional decisions for strugg ling readers. Moreover, they appr eciated a structured context in which to apply their beginning reading conceptual and practical tools. These results indicate teacher educators need to pay car eful attention to the structure and quality of practical teaching experiences, (ie. practicum placements), as they are the predominant vehicles for appropriating tools. Teacher educators are cautioned, however, about the inherent dang ers of pre-service teachers applying pedagogical t ools without possessing a conceptu al understanding behind their use. For example, as was described in Chapter 4, Kristys lack conceptual knowledge regarding Elkonin boxes resulted in her using them inappropr iately. Grossman et al. (1999) also found that pre-service teachers implemented pedagogical tools incorrectly when they lacked a deep working knowledge of the underlying concepts behind such tools. The importance of practical teaching experi ences raises many questions concerning the proliferation of alternative route (AR) programs. Pre-service te achers enrolled in AR programs typically assume full-time teaching positions while taking education coursework. While this provides AR teachers with plenti ful opportunities to appropriate know ledge in practice, are these opportunities facilitating higher levels of appropriation? Ar e AR teachers receiving enough coursework and mentoring to help them deve lop conceptual understandings of tools? Furthermore, what are the imp lications of alternative route teachers trying to appropriate conceptual and practical tools while simulta neously being held responsible for student achievement?

PAGE 172

172 Third, teacher educators should attend to practicum placement characteristics that influence pre-service teacher learning, such as how educational servic es were delivered to students and the types of curricula used. Pre-service teachers pl aced in practicum experiences that utilized inclusive classroom s in conjunction with push-in or pull-out models reported feeling the most confident to teach reading to students with disabilities and observation data confirmed they were most capable of appropriating tools re lated to special education reading instruction. Pre-service teachers placed in inclusive classrooms without push-in or pull-out models, or classrooms lacking collaboration between genera l education and special education teachers, however, did not observe differentiated inst ruction or accommodations for students with disabilities. In these placements reading instruction was uniform across all students, thus preservice teachers did not feel prepared to teach re ading to students with disabilities. Additionally, observation data and RISE scores indicated thei r difficulty appropriating reading tools. When it comes to designing special education preparation programs, theref ore, teacher educators would be wise to seek practicum placements that utilize a variety of service delivery models. In this study, placements employing resource rooms or pus h-in pull-out models all used the direct instruction Reading Mastery curr iculum. This curriculum appeared to facilitate participants appropriation of reading tools as well as their delivery of intensive, explicit, and systematic reading instruction. It seems the built in routines and management strategies associated with Reading Mastery allowed pre-se rvice teachers to focus on reading instruction rather than behavior management. Furthermore, Reading Ma stery prompted pre-serv ice teachers to use effective general instruc tional strategies such as scaffoldi ng, specific feedback, and guided and independent practice. Thus, special education teacher educators might want to provide training in curricula such as Reading Mastery before pre-service teachers engage in student teaching.

PAGE 173

173 Finally, teacher educators should keep in mind cooperating teachers influence on preservice teachers practic e. In the general education literat ure, Wilson, Floden, and Ferrini-Mundy (2001), also determined cooperating teachers play a powerful role in pre-service teacher learning. The results of this study ex tend the general education literature by hi ghlighting cooperating teachers qualities that mattered for special education pre-service teachers. For example, special education pre-service teachers benefited from cooperating teachers who had knowledge of special education and intensive, explicit read ing instruction. Special education pre-service teachers also profited from coopera ting teachers who offered feedb ack about the particular needs of students with disabilities, including specifi c behavioral and academic needs. In essence, cooperating teachers who were knowledgeable a bout special educati on and students with disabilities filled in perceived gaps in university coursework. The evidence from this study indicates tw o important ideas teach er educators should consider when crafting special education preparation programs. First, it seems critical to provide pre-service teachers with in-depth classroom teaching experiences throughout their program rather than during the final semesters. Participants in this study all contended that practical teaching opportunities were criti cal to their learning. When pr ovided an opportunity to apply coursework knowledge in practice, pre-service te achers seemed to develo p a deeper appreciation of course content. Scheduling reading methods courses in conjunction wi th practical teaching experiences might facilitate pre-service teachers appropriation of tools because they would have immediate opportunities to apply their knowledge in practice. Si milarly, the positive impact of systematic, intensive tutoring progra ms such as UFLI lends credence to the incorporation of such experiences in special educati on teacher preparation programs. Of course providing special education pre-service teachers with opportunities to apply their knowledge in practical settings

PAGE 174

174 throughout their preparation program is not easi ly achieved given the limited number of quality classroom placements. Moreover, quality coopera ting teachers with specialized knowledge of reading and special education are even harder to find. Providing potenti al cooperating teachers with training on how to be effective mentors to pre-service teachers is one way to increase the number of quality placements. Technological advan ces could offer additional solutions. With the advent of cyber-coaching, pre-service teachers can receive feedback from university personnel despite being separated by long distances. Specia l education pre-service teachers, therefore, could receive special education knowledge and strategies even if they are paired with cooperating teachers who lack knowle dge about special education and students with disabilities. Second, this study revealed the role course instructors play in pre-service teacher learning. Particularly for reading methods courses, the findings indicate instructors who have extensive knowledge of reading, who are skil led teachers, and who can develop positive interpersonal relationships with pre-service teac hers will have the most impact on pre-service teachers perceptions of course content. Teacher educators, therefore, may want to pay close attention to personnel who are assigned to teach these courses. In some instances, course instructors who are not as expe rienced or knowledgeable may need training or extra support. This studys findings also raised questions about the role local schools should play in teacher preparation. Several pre-service teachers in this study did not feel confident to teach students with disabilities, nor did they seem to appropriate tools to advanced levels. What will happen to these teachers once they graduate and enter classrooms as teachers of record? It appears that if pre-servic e teachers are not prepared to teach r eading or work with students with disabilities, schools will then take on the responsibility of prov iding such preparation. Is this possible for local school district s? If so, who in the schools s hould be responsible for helping

PAGE 175

175 novice special education teachers hone their concep tual and practical tools for teaching reading to students with disabilities? Results from this study suggest some answer s to the aforementioned questions. It seems imperative that institutes of hi gher education (IHE) form collabor ative relationships with local education agencies (LEA) so that the transition from pre-service preparation to full-time teaching is as seamless as possible. Additionally, there seem to be some practices that could be implemented at the school level to help support beginning special educators. Providing beginning special education teachers with training in a structured curriculum could help facilitate their reading instruction and classroom manageme nt. Additionally, providi ng beginning teachers with a mentor who is knowledgeable about explic it, systematic reading instruction could help novice teachers sharpen their reading instru ction for students with disabilities. Conclusion This study contributes to em pirical research designed to understand conditions under which teacher education makes a difference in sp ecial education pre-service teacher learning. In doing so, it bridges separa te lines of inquiry in general e ducation and special education through the use of activity theory applie d in a special education research context. This is important because, though similar on the surface, general e ducation research findings are not necessarily applicable to special education questions. In other words, speci al education researchers cannot assume that findings from the general education literature will be the sa me once situated in a special education context. The results indicate that the impact of teach er education varies by individual. Pre-service teachers experience prep aration programs differently as a result of interactions among their opportunities to approp riate knowledge in practice, their personal qualities, their motivation for knowledge assi milation, and their access to knowledge. The complex interactions that emerged in this st udy show that research in teacher preparation,

PAGE 176

176 particularly in the context of special educati on, must capture these complexities if we hope to develop a deep understanding of the role prepar ation plays in pre-service teacher learning.

PAGE 177

177 APPENDIX A PRIOR BELIEFS AND EXPERIENCES SURVEY 1. Describe your K-12 schooling experiences (w ha t type of schools you attended, other students in your classes, types of teachers etc.) 2. Describe any experiences you have had teaching children how to read. 3. Describe any experiences you have had working with students with disabilities. 4. What are your beliefs about how best to teach students with learning disabilities how to read? Please complete a concept map about reading in struction. In the space around the circle, please list as many ideas that come to mind when you think about reading instruction reading instruction

PAGE 178

178 APPENDIX B INFORMED CONSENT LETTERS Informed C onsent Dear ProTeach Special Education Pre-service Teachers, My name is Melinda Leko, and I am a doctoral stude nt in the Department of Special Education at the University of Florida, conducting an inde pendent study on the know ledge and experiences preservice teachers draw from during their inte rnship experience. I am conducting this study under the supervision of Dr. Mary T. Brownell. The purpose of this study is to examine the knowledge and experiences preservi ce teachers draw from during their internship experience. Based on the results of this study, teacher edu cators will gain insights into how preservice students construct their knowledge about teaching reading. The results could help inform the ways teacher educators structure their reading courses. With your permission, I would like to invite you to participate in this research study. If you agree to participate, I will be conducting four videotap ed observations during your Fall 2007 internship experience. During my observations, I will be using a classroom observation tool and taking notes on your reading instruction prac tices. Also, I would like to interview you four times throughout the Fall 2007 semester about yo ur beliefs and experiences concerning your program of study. During the inte rviews, I would like to talk with you about your program plan and past courses. The interviews will last no longer than 60 minutes, and will be outside of your course meeting times at your convenience. You ar e not required to answer any questions that make you feel uncomfortable. With your permissi on, I would like to audi otape the interviews. Only I will have access to the tapes, which I will personally transcribe, removing any identifiers during transcription. The tapes will be safely stored at my office cabinet until this study finishes, and then will be destroyed. I would like to ask you to complete a knowledge of reading assessment at the beginning and end of the stud y. The knowledge of reading assessment will last no longer than 60 minutes. Finally, I would like you to complete a prior experiences survey at the beginning of the study. The pr ior experiences survey will last no longer than 20 minutes. All interview, observation, assessment, and survey da ta will remain confidential to the extent provided by law and your identity will not be revealed in any oral or written report of this study. In order to respect the rights of participants, re sults of the study will not be available to any course instructors. Your willingness to participate in this study will in no way affect your evaluation in any of your courses or internship experience. You will receive a stipend of $50 for your participation. There will be no risks and se veral benefits for your partic ipation. The observation will not disrupt the learning process duri ng your internship. Potential be nefits include gaining more information about reading instruction for preser vice teachers. Your participation is strictly voluntary. I will be willing to discuss this study with you at any time and will answer any questions. At the completion of the study, I woul d like to discuss the findings with you. You have the right to withdraw consent for your pa rticipation at any time without consequence. If you have any questions about this research pr otocol, please contact me at the University of Florida, Department of Special Education, G315 Norman Hall, P.O. Box 117050, Gainesville,

PAGE 179

179 FL 32611, (352) 392-0701 ext. 289 or my faculty advi sor, Dr. Mary Brownell, at the University of Florida, Department of Special E ducation, G-315 Norman Hall, P.O. Box 117050, Gainesville, FL 32611, (352) 392-0701 ext. 249. Ques tions or concerns about your rights as research participant may be dire cted to the UFIRB office, University of Florida, P.O. Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611, (352) 392-0433. I have read the procedure described above. I vol untarily participate in this study and I have received a copy of this description. ____________________________________________ _________________ Signature of Participant Date _____________________________________________ Print Name

PAGE 180

180 Informed Consent Dear Practicum Cooperating Teacher, My name is Melinda Leko, and I am a doctoral stude nt in the Department of Special Education at the University of Florida, conducting an inde pendent study on the know ledge and experiences preservice teachers draw from during their inte rnship experience. I am conducting this study under the supervision of Dr. Mary T. Brownell. The purpose of this study is to examine the knowledge and experiences preservi ce teachers draw from during their internship experience. Based on the results of this study, teacher edu cators will gain insights into how preservice students construct their knowledge about teaching reading. The results could help inform the ways teacher educators structure their reading courses. With your permission, I would like to invite you to participate in this research study. If you agree to participate, I would like to interview you once during the Spring 2007 semester about your reading course. The interview will last no longer than 60 minutes, and will be outside of your course meeting times at your convenience. You are not required to answer any questions that make you feel uncomfortable. With your permission, I would like to audiotape the interviews. Only I will have access to the tapes, which I will personally transcribe, removing any identifiers during transcription. The tape will be sa fely stored at my office cabinet until this study finishes, and then will be destroyed. All interv iew data will remain confidential to the extent provided by law and your identity will not be revealed in any oral or written report of this study. You will receive a $25 stipend for your participation. There will be no risks and seve ral benefits for your particip ation. The interview will be scheduled at a time that is convenient for you. Potential benefits include gaining more information about reading instruction for preser vice teachers. Your participation is strictly voluntary. I will be willing to discuss this study with you at any time and will answer any questions. At the completion of the study, I woul d like to discuss the findings with you. You have the right to withdraw consent for your pa rticipation at any time without consequence. If you have any questions about this research pr otocol, please contact me at the University of Florida, Department of Special Education, G315 Norman Hall, P.O. Box 117050, Gainesville, FL 32611, (352) 392-0701 ext. 289 or my faculty advi sor, Dr. Mary Brownell, at the University of Florida, Department of Special E ducation, G-315 Norman Hall, P.O. Box 117050, Gainesville, FL 32611, (352) 392-0701 ext. 249. Ques tions or concerns about your rights as research participant may be dire cted to the UFIRB office, University of Florida, P.O. Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611, (352) 392-0433. I have read the procedure described above. I vol untarily participate in this study and I have received a copy of this description. ____________________________________________ _________________ Signature of Participant Date _____________________________________________ Print Name

PAGE 181

181 Informed Consent Dear ProTeach Course Instructor, My name is Melinda Leko, and I am a doctoral stude nt in the Department of Special Education at the University of Florida, conducting an inde pendent study on the know ledge and experiences preservice teachers draw from during their inte rnship experience. I am conducting this study under the supervision of Dr. Mary T. Brownell. The purpose of this study is to examine the knowledge and experiences preservi ce teachers draw from during their internship experience. Based on the results of this study, teacher edu cators will gain insights into how preservice students construct their knowledge about teaching reading. The results could help inform the ways teacher educators structure their reading courses. With your permission, I would like to invite you to participate in this research study. If you agree to participate, I would like to interview you once during the Spring 2007 semester about your reading course. The interview will last no longer than 60 minutes, and will be outside of your course meeting times at your convenience. You are not required to answer any questions that make you feel uncomfortable. With your permission, I would like to audiotape the interviews. Only I will have access to the tapes, which I will personally transcribe, removing any identifiers during transcription. The tape will be sa fely stored at my office cabinet until this study finishes, and then will be dest royed. I would also like to request a copy of the course syllabus that accompanies your reading cour se. All interview and syllabus data will remain confidential to the extent provided by law and your identity will not be revealed in any oral or written report of this study. There is no compensation for participating in this study. There will be no risks and seve ral benefits for your particip ation. The interview will be scheduled at a time that is convenient for you. Potential benefits include gaining more information about reading instruction for preser vice teachers. Your participation is strictly voluntary. I will be willing to discuss this study with you at any time and will answer any questions. At the completion of the study, I woul d like to discuss the findings with you. You have the right to withdraw consent for your pa rticipation at any time without consequence. If you have any questions about this research pr otocol, please contact me at the University of Florida, Department of Special Education, G315 Norman Hall, P.O. Box 117050, Gainesville, FL 32611, (352) 392-0701 ext. 289 or my faculty advi sor, Dr. Mary Brownell, at the University of Florida, Department of Special E ducation, G-315 Norman Hall, P.O. Box 117050, Gainesville, FL 32611, (352) 392-0701 ext. 249. Ques tions or concerns about your rights as research participant may be dire cted to the UFIRB office, University of Florida, P.O. Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611, (352) 392-0433. I have read the procedure described above. I vol untarily participate in this study and I have received a copy of this description. ____________________________________________ _________________ Signature of Participant Date _____________________________________________ Print Name

PAGE 182

182 APPENDIX C INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Pre-serv ice Teacher Interview I Protocol Note: Interview I is conducted near the beginnin g of the study, but after the participants have completed the knowledge about reading assessment and prior experiences survey. I would like to thank you for agr eeing to participate in this study about pre-service teacher reading preparation. Your contribution to this study is greatly appreciated. This interview will help me gain a genera l understanding about your beliefs, knowledge, and experiences concerning reading inst ruction. The interview will be recorded for research purposes and its tape will be available upon your request. You do not have to answer any question that makes you feel uncomfortable. 1. To maintain confidentiality, I would li ke to transcribe your responses under a pseudonym. What would you like your pseudonym to be? 2. Tell me about your early reading experiences. -What were they like? -Can you remember what kind of strategies teachers used? -How did they make you feel? 3. Describe the courses you have had during th e ProTeach program that relate to reading instruction? 4. I noticed that you answered__________ on the kn owledge about reading assessement. Can you tell me more about this? -Why did you pick this answer? -What did you think about when you answered this question? -Where did you learn this information? 5. Is there anything I have left out about struggling readers that you would like to discuss? Thank you for your time.

PAGE 183

183 Pre-service Teacher Interview II & III Protocol Note: Interviews II & III are conducted after classroom observa tions have been conducted. I would like to ask questions a bout your experiences and prac tices during your internship experience. Like the first interview, this interv iew will be also recorded for research purposes and its tape will be available upon your request. You do not have to answer any question that makes you feel uncomfortable. 1. Tell me about your internship experience. 2. How do you know what to teach and how to teach reading during your internship experience? 3. When I conducted classroom observations, I noticed ______________. Can you tell me about this? -From what knowledge did you draw? -Where did you learn this? Please explain. 4. How do your ProTeach courses relate to your internship? 5. Is there anything about teaching reading that I have left out that you would like to discuss? Thank you for your time.

PAGE 184

184 Pre-service Teacher Interview IV Protocol Note: Interview IV is conduc ted at the end of the study I would like to ask you to help me verify that the information I have collected is accurate. I would also like to talk with you about your prog ram of study. Like the other interviews, this interview will be also recorded for research pu rposes and its tape will be available upon your request. You do not have to answer any que stion that makes you feel uncomfortable. 1. Describe your program of study? -What courses have you taken that have he lped you in your teaching of reading? -What experiences have been most meaningful? 2. Where else have you learned about reading instruction? 3. I have a copy of the syllabus from ___________ c ourse. Can you tell me about this course? -What did you learn from this course? -Do you use any of this knowledge when you teach reading during your internship? 4. In our earlier interviews, you sa id __________________. Do you still believe this? 5. In our earlier interviews, you said __________________. What else would you like to add to this? 6. ________________ is something that I have learned from this study. Based on your experience, is this correct? 7. Is there anything related to any of our convers ations that you would lik e to discuss further? 8. Have I left out anything related to this study that you would like to tell me? Thank you for your participation.

PAGE 185

185 Course Instructor Interview Protocol I would like to ask you to talk to me about the course you teach in reading instruction. Also, I would like to make sure the information I have colle cted is accurate. This interview will be also recorded for research purposes and its tape wi ll be available upon your request. You do not have to answer any question that makes you feel uncomfortable. 1. Describe your reading methods course? -What experiences are most meaningful? -What knowledge do pre-service teache rs acquire from this course? -Why is ____________ assignment/experience a part of the course? 2. How does this course relate to ot her reading courses in the program? 3. ________________ is something that I have learned from this study. Based on your experience, is this correct? -Is there anything you woul d like to add or change? 7. Is there anything related to our conversat ion that you would like to discuss further? 8. Have I left out anything related to this study that you would like to tell me? Thank you for your participation.

PAGE 186

186 Practicum Cooperating Teacher Interview Protocol I would like to ask you to talk to me about your participation as a c ooperating teacher. Also, I would like to make sure the information I have colle cted is accurate. This interview will be also recorded for research purposes and its tape wi ll be available upon your request. You do not have to answer any question that makes you feel uncomfortable. 1. Tell me about your teaching experience? 2. Did your preparation progra m have reading courses? 3. Describe reading instru ction for your students? 4. How best do students learn to read? 5. Do you have students with disabilities in your class? 6. How do they receive their sp ecial education services? 7. How did you get to have a practicum student? 8. What struggles do you see interns having? 9. What are your goals for ___________ this semester? 10. What do you hope she will learn from being in your class? 11. How does she plan a lesson? 12. Is there anything related to our conversat ion that you would like to discuss further? 13. Have I left out anything related to this study that you would like to tell me? Thank you for your participation.

PAGE 187

187 Field Advisor Interview Protocol I would like to ask you to talk to me about your participation as a PROT EACH field supervisor. Also, I would like to make sure the information I have collected is accurate. This interview will be also recorded for research purposes and it s tape will be available upon your request. You do not have to answer any question that makes you feel uncomfortable. 1. What is your teaching experience? 2. How did you become a field advisor? 3. Besides Pathwise, what other th ings do you base your evaluation on? 4. How do you conduct a feedback session? 5. What are practicum student s strengths? Weaknesses? 6. What are your impressions of their read ing knowledge? 7. How do placements differ? 8. From what knowledge sources are pract icum students basing their knowledge? 9. What is the perfect pla cement to link UF knowledge? 10. Is there anything related to our conversat ion that you would like to discuss further? 11. Have I left out anything related to this study that you wo uld like to tell me? Thank you for your participation.

PAGE 188

188 APPENDIX D TABLE OF CODES Table D-1. Table of Codes Open codes Axial codes Selective codes make accountable lack of involvement in planning Influence of individual congruence with university courses accountability during practicum Influence of university knowledge of terminology alignment of courses Influence of field placements focus on assessment appropriation of labels Personal qualities need to learn about assessments differences in prior schooling Motivation for knowledge assimilation congruence with university and practicum alignment of university and practicum Access to knowledge course content overlaps participation in decision making Opportunities to appropriate knowledge in practice knowledge for decision making delayed appreciation of coursework decision making about curriculum opportunities for differentiation delayed appreciation difficulty enacting knowledge differentiating instructio n difficulty of reading knowledge difficult to enact knowledge positive family influence coursework is not clear honest about ability differences in content difficulty importance of practice learning to read is effortless individual differences reading complexities are new instructional logistics mom is a teacher knowledge assimilation positive perceptions of university knowledge accepting of feedback hidden difficulties of teaching lack of special education knowledge lesson planning takes time levels of knowledge coursework linked to practice link theory to practice practical component time spent planning opportunity to practice economic background hands-on learning cultural background confidence levels differ practicum differences

PAGE 189

189 Table D-1. Continued. Open codes Axial codes Selective codes difficulty letting go of past prior experiences in classrooms influence of past experiences reflection revert back resistance to coursework reflection time constraints differences in knowledge varying perspectives sense of entitlement ba rriers to instruction differing cooperating teacher motivations collaboration personal philosophy develops communication info needs to be assimilated opportunities to teach students "filed and clicked" influence of cooperating teacher relief comes with knowledge assimilation influence of university "ah ha moment" instructional freedom reading builds knowledge knowledge of self work with struggling readers knowledge supports observation of progress open mind UFLI beneficial reflective not making connections re lationship to students relating various components resistant to feedback language barriers responsive to students tension between ideal and reality successful practices tension between university and classroom varied student abilities gets pre-lesson feedback natural teaching ability lack of communication desire to improve lack knowledge about reading role of curriculum lack of knowledge about students with disabilities future teaching goals disabilities are a myster y student population superficial knowledge vs. deep understanding opportunities to implement five areas of reading research-based behavior management

PAGE 190

190 Table D-1. Continued. Open codes Axial codes Selective codes motivated by grades dilemmas school differences hidden complexities of teaching service delivery model differences self-consciousness school viewpoints differ special education reading instruction reflect on prior schooling ch aracteristics of special educators five components of reading instructional restrictions reading strategies trust provides resources lack of opportunities to observe effective instruction reflective logs cooperating teacher beliefs acceptance of phonics rigid adherence to structure resistant to repetitive knowledge prior experiences observing in inclusive classrooms experiences help translate knowledge organized "real world" assignment personal teaching style link to the classroom systematic link theory and practice intr insic motivation to help students with disabilities time constraint mother is teacher barriers to instruction lack of opportunities to observe sped practices excessive content FCAT focus impact of behavior management cooperating teacher reading knowledge ability to collaborate cooperating teacher special education knowledge importance of communication positive coursework experience feedback negative coursework experience varied teaching abilities influence of field supervisor differences in motivation initiative differences in initiative desire to be liked instructional freedom sib ling with disability know strengths and weaknesses future goal of special education open to feedback positive role of UFLI

PAGE 191

191 Table D-1. Continued. Open codes Axial codes Selective codes keep an open mind lack of opportunities to plan instruction class size variables conflicting coursework messages reflection role of curriculum student-centered instruction early reading memories do what works multiple adults provide knowledge effective instruction for students determination lack the bigger picture accepts a challenge don't have "teacher eyes" strives for excellence cooperating teacher as coach responsibility for student learning relinquish control accountability during coursework modeling timid general feedback confidence level cooperating teacher influence cooperating teacher feedback rapport with students commitment to all students anxiety extrinsic motivation to help students with disabilities lack big picture service delivery model tunnel vision opportunities to teach reading scripted curriculum acc ountable for delivering instruction differentiation is hard emergent literacy natural teaching ability assessment courses evidence of pre-planning challenging classroom management pacing is difficult field supervisor feedback "time is of the essence" confining curriculum interest in inclusion gaps between university and practicum affective motivation develop patience likes a challenge sparked an interest diverse students many fragile readers

PAGE 192

192 Table D-1. Continued. Open codes Axial codes Selective codes growing love of ESE kids provide motivation negative coursework miscommunication "clicked" with kids reading assessments learned from prior placement ability grouping use of curriculum joint planning concern for students experience is beneficial expands on curriculum draws on personal experience centers beliefs about inclusion love of reading relies on curriculum cultural differences lesson coherence fun instruction teach to mastery takes responsibility "drown or swim" teaching reading is hard automaticity challenges are beneficial similar teaching styles draws on own schooling motivated by student success find the right instruction teaching background student ownership of learning establish expectations establish procedures teaching looks easy specific feedback organizational skills several adults role confusion

PAGE 193

193 Table D-1. Continued. Open codes Axial codes Selective codes overwhelmed schooling background students left alone provides accommodations inclusion in LRE bring in coursework knowledge lack of knowledge for beginning reading balancing a dilemma direct instruction teacher fog develop with-it-ness knowledge transfer outside looking in teaching strategies were invisible caught in the middle instructional restrictions error analysis controlled by routine foster student independence lack of confidence resistant to feedback challenged by prior beliefs curriculum is helpful joint planning trust similar styles higher expectations respect for cooperating teacher support from university learns from others students like hands on students need repetition co-teaching model no training for cooperating teacher classroom management comes with time classroom management is a necessity for instruction

PAGE 194

194 Table D-1. Continued. Open codes Axial codes Selective codes learn by watching must model reading inclusion model believes in inclusion disability in lack of resources FCAT focus advanced word study strategies critiques curriculum limited teaching opportunities difficult placement hard to control behavior unaware of reading complexities point sheets not deviating from existing structure "doing it and seeing it" information overload doesn't relate to students realization of teacher self early teaching aspirations excluded from planning practicum is necessary coursework intimidates good teaching looks easy uses curriculum as a resource rejected feedback prior opportunities to teach loss of classroom control strengthen general education skills develop "teacher toolkit" teacher-directed instruction focuses on what students would like restricted placement turning point plans instruction based on student needs

PAGE 195

195 Table D-1. Continued Open codes Axial codes Selective codes relates to middle class poor behavior management is barrier scripted programs take time to learn lack of reading mastery knowledge teachers must be flexible learning to work with others communicates before lesson provides formal feedback informal observation find comfort zone discovering student needs instruction is differentiated instruction is individualized lesson approval limited acceptance of outside knowledge must enjoy reading university curriculum is disconnected from schools meeting expectations lost trust with interns accepting of pre-service teachers instructional logistics managing small groups setting expectations establishing procedures university preparation is good knows sounds believes in phonics believes in placements must do it to learn it don't know until you teach it comfort with curriculum ability to attend to multiple things

PAGE 196

196 Table D-1. Continued. Open codes Axial codes Selective codes push language structured, sequential curriculum individualization kids get what they need no involvement in planning purposeful plan facilitates behavior management student differences silent reading partner reading groupings small group instruction pullout service delivery model struggles with time management in-depth planning improve time management lack of communication must collaborate must communicate

PAGE 197

197 APPENDIX E EXCERPTS FROM REFLECTIVE LOG Septem ber 20, 2007 Today was my first interview with Nancy. She was very sweet but also very shy. I had to work to get her to elaborate on her answers. Roosevelt Elementary did not start reading instruction until the 2nd or 3rd week of school. Nancy has just been helping out with the kids, not really teaching yet. She agreed to hand out video c onsent forms for students and then email me a good time to come observe. October 1, 2007 Today I interviewed Instructor E. She seemed ve ry rushed. I did not feel overly welcome. She asked if it would take longer than 10-15 minutes. I told her I would not take more time than she could give me.

PAGE 198

198 LIST OF REFERENCES Baker, S., Gersten, R., H aager, D., Dingle, M. & Goldenberg, C. (2004). The relationship between observed teaching practice and growth in readin g in 1st graders who are English learners (Tech. Rep. No. 2004-1). Eugene, OR: P acific Institutes for Research. Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies New York: Cambridge University Press. Beran, T. & Violato, C. (2005). Ratings of univers ity teacher instruction: How much do student and course characteristics really matter? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 593-601. Berliner, D. C. (1988). The half-full glass: A revi ew of research on teaching. In E. L. Meyen, G.A. Vergason, & R.J. Whelan (Eds.), Effective instructional strategies for exceptional children (pp.7-31). Denver, CO: Love Publishing. Blanton, L., Sindelar, P., Correa, V., Hard man, M., McDonnel, J., & Kuhel, K. (2003). Conceptions of beginning teacher quality: Models for conducting research Center for Personnel Studies in Special Education. Retrieved April 18, 2005 from http://www.copsse.org. Book, C. L. & Freeman, D. J. (1986). Differences in entry characteristics of elementary and secondary teacher candidates. Journal of Teacher Education, 37 (2), 47-51. Borko, H. & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to t each. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational psychology (pp. 673-699). New York: Macmillan. Bos, C., Mather, N., Dickson, S., Podhajski, B ., & Chard, D. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and inservice educat ors about early reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 97-120. Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Grossman, P., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). How changes in entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 1 (2), 1-41. Brookhart, S. M. & Freeman, D. J. (1992). Char acteristics of entering teacher candidates. Review of Educational Research, 32 (1), 37-60. Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value as pects of motivation in education: Developing appreciation for particular le arning domains and activities. Education Psychologist, 34(2) 75-85. Brownell, M. T., Bishop, A. G., Gersten, R., Klingner, J. K., Dimino, J., Haager, D. et al. (in press). Examining the Dimensions of Teach er Quality for Beginning Special Education Teachers: The Role of Domain Expertise. Exceptional Children

PAGE 199

199 Brownell, M. T., Ross, D. D., Colon, E. P., & McCallum, C. L. (2005). Critic al features of special education teacher preparation: A comparison wi th exemplary practices in general teacher education. Journal of Special Education, 38 242-252. Bullough, R. V. & Stokes, D. K. (1994). Analyz ing personal metaphors in preservice teacher education as a means for encour aging professional development. American Educational Research Journal, 31 (1), 197-224. Calderhead, J. & Robson, M. (1991). Images of t eaching: Student teachers early conceptions of classroom practice. Teaching & Teacher Education, 7 1-8. Carlisle, J., Phelps, G., Ro wan, B., & Johnson, D. (2006). Development of a test of teachers knowledge about early reading. (Technical Report No. 1). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory objectiv ist and constructivist methods. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 273-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory London: Sage. Cheek, E.H., Steward, F.A., Launey, B.L., & Borgia, L.G. (2004). Facilitative reading instruction: Preservice teachers voi ces and perceptions. Reading Improvement, 41 129-142. Cochran-Smith, M. (2000). The outco mes question in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17 527-546. Cook, B. (2002). Inclusive attitudes, strengths an d weaknesses of pre-serv ice general educators enrolled in a curriculum infusi on teacher preparation program. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25 262-277. Corbin, J. & Holt, N. (2005). Grounded theory. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 49-55). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research de sign: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy London: Routledge. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Studies of excellence in teacher education Washington, DC: AACTE Publications. DeFord, D. (1985). Validating the construct of theoretical orie ntation in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 20 351-367.

PAGE 200

200 Denzin, N. K., & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.). (2000). Handbook qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Duffy, A. M., & Atkinson, T.S. (2001). Learni ng to teach struggling (and non-struggling) elementary school readers: An analysis of pre-service teachers knowledges. Reading Research and Instruction, 41, 83-102. Fairbanks, C. M. & Meritt, J. (1998). Preservice teachers' reflections and the role of context in learning to teach. Teacher Education Quarterly, 25, 47-68. Fang, Z. & Ashley, C. (2004). Preser vice teachers interpretations of a field-based reading block. Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 39-54. Feiman-Nemser, S. (1983). Learning to teac h. In L. S. Shulman and G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 150-171). New York: Longman. Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1985). The first year of teacher preparation: Transition to pedagogical thinking? Michigan State Univ: Institu te for research on teaching. Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teach ers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6 (62), 207-226. Garmon, M. A. (2004). Changing preservice teachers attitudes/beliefs about diversity: What are the critical factors? Journal of Teacher Education, 55 (3), 201-213. Garriott, P. P., Miller, M., & Snyder, L. (2003). Pre-service t eachers beliefs about inclusive education: What should teacher educators know? Action in Teacher Education 25 (1), 4854. Giangreco, M. F., Dennis, R., Cloninger, C., Ed elman, S., & Schattman, R. (1993). Ive counted Jon: Transformational experiences of teacher s educating students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 359-372. Glaser, B.G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967 ). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Publishing Company. Graue, M. E. (1993). Ready for what? Constructing meanings of readiness for Kindergarten Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Green, J. E., & Weaver, R. A. (1992). Who aspire s to teach? A descriptiv e study of preservice teachers. Contemporary Education, 63 (3), 234-238.

PAGE 201

201 Grossman, P. L. & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future. Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45 184-205. Grossman, P. L., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia S. (1999). Appropriati ng tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework fo r research on learning to teach. American Journal of Education, 108 1-25. Grossman, P. L., Valencia, S. W., Evans, K., Thompson, C., Martin, S., & Place, N. (2000). Transitions into teaching: Learning to teach writing in teacher education and beyond. Journal of Literacy Research 32(4), 631-62. Guarino, C. M., Hamilton, L. S., Lockwood, J. R., & Rathbun, A. H. (2006). Teacher qualifications, instructional practices, and reading and mathematics gains of kindergartners (NCES No. 2006-031). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Harlin, R. P. (1999). Developing fu ture professionals: Influences of literacy coursework and field experiences. Reading Research and Instruction, 38 351-370. Harris, D. N. & Sass, T. R. (2007). The effects of NBPTS-certi fied teachers on students achievement. Durham, NC: Urban Institute. Hatton, M. & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher educat ion: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11 (1), 33-49. Hess, F. M. (2001). Tear down the wall: The case for a radi cal overhaul of teacher certification. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute. Retrieved February 27, 2007 from: http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_sub.cfm ?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=135 Hoffman, J. V., Roller, C., Maloch, B., Sailors, M., Duffy, G., Beretvas S. N. et al. (2005). Teachers preparation to teaching reading and their experien ces and practices in th e first three years of teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 105 (3), 267-288. Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and c ognitive change in learning to teach. American Education Research Journal, 26 160-189. Hoy, W. K. & Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Socialization of student teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 27 279-300. Humphrey, D., & Wechsler, M. (2005). Insights into alternative certification: Initial findings from a national study. Retrieved July 27, 2007 from http: //www.sri.com/policy/cep/teachers/altcert.html Hutchinson, N. L. & Martin, A. K. (1999). Foster ing inclusive beliefs and practices during preservice teacher education th rough communities of practice. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22 234-250.

PAGE 202

202 International Reading Association. (2003). Prepared to make a difference: An executive summary of the national commission on excellenc e in elementary teacher preparation for reading instruction. Newark, DE: IRA. Jirovec, R. L., Ramanathan, C. S., & Alvarez, A. R. (1998). Cour se evaluations: What are social work students telling us about teaching effectiveness? Journal of Social Work Education, 34, 229-236. Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Ac tivity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47 61-79. Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth am ong preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62 129-169. Kagan, D. M. (1992a). Implication of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27 (1), 65-90. Kennedy, M. (1991). Some surprising fi ndings on how teachers learn to teach. Educational Leadership, 49(3), 14-17. Kennedy, M. (1991a). Research genres in teacher education. (Issue Paper 91-1). Retrieved October 11, 2007 from http://ncrtl.msu.edu/full.htm Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On Death and Dying. London: MacMillan Publishing Company. Laczko-Kerr, I., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). The effectiveness of Teach for America and other under-certified teachers on student academic achievement: A case of harmful public policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10 (37). Retrieved January, 15, 2008, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n37/ Lessen, E., & Frankiewicz, L.E. (1 992). Personal attributes and char acteristics of effective Special education teachers: Considerations for teacher educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 15 (2), 124-131. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contra dictions and emerging confluences. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Linek, W. M., Nelson, O. G., Sampson, M.B., Zeek, C.K., Mohr, K.A., & Hughes, L. (1999). Developing beliefs about literacy instruction: A cross-case anal ysis of preservice teachers in traditional and field based settings. Reading Research and Instruction, 38 371-386. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher; a sociological study Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

PAGE 203

203 Maloch, B., Flint, S. A., Eldridge, D., Harmon, J., Loven, R., Fine, J. C., et al. (2003). Understandings, beliefs, and reported decisi on making of first-year teachers from different reading teacher preparation programs. The Elementary School Journal, 103 (5), 431-457. McLeskey, J., Waldron, N. L., So, T. H., Swanso n, K., & Loveland, T. (2001). Perspectives of teachers toward inclusive school programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 108-115. Merriam, S. B. (1995). What can you tell from an N of 1?: Issues of valid ity and reliability in qualitative research. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 4, 51-60. Minke, K. M., Bear, G. G., Deemer, S. A., & Gr iffin, S. M. (1996). Teachers experiences with inclusive classrooms: Implications for special education reform. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 152-186. Monk, D.H. (1994). Subject matter preparati on of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13 (2), 125-145. Munby, H. (1982). The place of teachers beli efs in research on teacher thinking and decision making and an alternative methodology. Instructional Science 11, 201. Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). T eachers knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 877-905). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Mundel-Atherstone, B. J. (1980, June). A personality profile of students who are successful in student teaching and in teaching Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Montreal, Quebec. Nardi, B. (1996). Contexts and consciousness: Activity th eory and human-computer interaction. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (1991). Findings from the teacher education and learning to teach study East Lansing, MI: National Ce nter for Research on Teacher Learning, Michigan State University College of Education. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk Retrieved April 4, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs /NatAtRisk/index.html National Commission on Teaching a nd Americas Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for Americas future. New York: Author. Nierstheimer, S.L., Hopkins, C.J., & Dillon, D.R. (2000). Pre-service teachers shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners. Reading Research and Instruction, 40 1-16.

PAGE 204

204 Nougaret, A.A., Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2005). Does teacher education produce better SETs? Exceptional Children, 71 (5) 217-229. Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers beliefs and educ ational research : Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62 307-332. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods, (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Phelps, G. & Schilling, S. (2004). Developing measures of content knowledge for teaching reading. Elementary School Journal, 105 31-48. Pierce, F.P. (2004). From literacy methods classes to the real world: Experiences of preservice teachers. The New England Reading A ssociation Journal, 40, 55-62. Pigge, F. L. & Marso, R. N. (1986, February). Influences of personal and academic characteristics on beginning teacher education students attitudes, concerns, and anxieties toward teaching Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Atlanta, GA. Pigge, F. L. & Marso, R. N. (1987). Relationship between student characteristics and changes in attitudes, concerns, anxietie s, and confidence about teaching during teacher preparation. Journal of Educational Research, 81 109-115. Pigge, F. L. & Marso, R. N. (1990). A longitudi nal assessment of the affective impact of preservice training on prospective teachers. Journal of Experimental Education, 58 (4), 283289. Poulu, M. (2007). Personal teaching efficacy and its sources: Student teachers perceptions. Educational Psychology, 27 (2), 191-218. Pugach, M. (2005). Research on preparing teachers to work with students with disabilities. In M. Cochran-Smith, & K.M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher educatio n: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 549-590). Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Richards, J. C. & Morse, T. E. (2002). One pres ervice teachers experien ces teaching literacy to regular and special education students. Reading Online, June. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds .), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (pp.102119). NY: Macmillan. Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teach er change. In V. Richardson (Ed.). Handbook for research on teaching (pp. 905-947). Washington, DC: Am erican Educational Research Association.

PAGE 205

205 Saklofske, D., Michaluk, B., & Randhawa, B. ( 1988). Teachers efficacy and teaching behaviors. Psychological Report, 63 407-414. Schell, L. & Rouch, R. (1988). The low readi ng group: An instructional and social dilemma. Journal of Reading Education, 14 18-23. Sindelar, P. T., Daunic, A., & Rennells, M. S. (2004). Comparisons of traditionally and alternatively trained teachers. Exceptionality 12, 209-223. Smith, G. & Anderson, K. J. (2005). Students ratings of professors: The teaching style contingency for Latino/a professors. Journal of Latinos and Education, 4, 115-136. Stough, L., & Palmer, D. (2003). Special thinking in special settings: A qual itative study of expert special educators. The Journal of Special Education, 36 206-222. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sudzina, M.R. & Knowles, G. J. (1993). Personal, professional and contextual circumstances of student teachers who fail: Setting a course for understandin g failure in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 254-262. Taylor, B. M., Pressley, M., & Pearson, P. D. (2000). Effective teachers and schools: Trends across recent studies. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement. Taylor, S. V. & Sobel, D. M. (2001). Addressi ng the discontinuity of students and teachers diversity A preliminary study of pre-servi ce teachers beliefs a nd perceived skills. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17 487-503. Terrill, M., & Mark, D. L. H. (2000). Preservice teach ers expectations for schools with children of color and second-language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2), 149-155. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68 (2), 202-248. Waldron, N. L., McLeskey, J., & Pacciano, D. (1999). Giving teachers a voice: Teachers perspectives regarding elementary inclusive school programs (ISP). Teacher Education and Special Education, 22 141-153. Walsh, K. (2001). Teacher certification reconsid ered: Stumbling for quality Baltimore, MD: The Abell Foundation. Retrieved June 24, 2005 from http://www.abell.org/pub lications/detail.asp?ID=59

PAGE 206

206 Weisner, T. S., Gallimore, R., & Jordan, C. (1988). Unpacking cultural effects on classroom learning: Hawaiian peer assistance and child-generated activity. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 19 327-353. Wenglinsky, H. (2000). Teaching the teachers: Different settings, different results Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center. Wham, M.A. (1993). The relationship between u ndergraduate course work and beliefs about reading instruction. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27 9-17. Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case fo r an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68 130-178. Wilson, S. M, Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. Zeichner, K.M. (2005). A research agenda for te acher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, & K.M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying Teacher Education (pp.737-760) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Zeichner, K. M., & Conklin, H. G. (2005). Teacher education programs. In M. Cochran-Smith, & K.M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 645-736). Mawah, NJ: Lawr ence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Zumwalt, K., & Craig, E. (2005). Teachers characte ristics: Research on the indicators of quality. In M. Cochran-Smith, & K.M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher educat ion: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp.157-260) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

PAGE 207

207 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Melinda Marie Leko was born on April 21, 198 0, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Melinda and her fam ily lived in Louisian a until she was three years old; at which time, they moved to Sarasota, Florida. After graduating from Pi ne View High School in 1998, Melinda attended college at the University of Florida receiving a Bachelor of Science degree in psychology and a Bachelor of Arts degree in cr iminology in 2001 and being named Va ledictorian of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Realizing her love of teaching, Melinda im mediately entered an accelerated masters program in elementary educa tion at the University of Florida. Receiving her masters in education degree in 2002, Melinda began her teaching career in Levy County, where she worked as a third grade general educator in an inclusive classroom in the rural community of Williston, FL. Two years later, Melinda assumed th e position of teacher for gifted students in grades 3-12 in the city of Williston. While taking classes for her gifted teaching endorsement and specialists degree, Melinda d ecided to pursue her doctorate in special education at the University of Florida. She was admitted to the University of Florida as a doctoral student and Alumni Fellow in 2005. During her doctoral program, Melinda wa s a research assistant on the OSEP funded leadership grant Project Research in Teacher Ed ucation (RITE). Melinda also participated in various research projects through the Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education (COPSSE). Finally, Melinda was ap pointed to the position of pr oject coordinator for the IES funded project Literacy Learning Cohort (LLC). Her research inte rests include special education teacher preparation, specific learning disa bilities, research methods, and reading.