By the book and behind-the-glass: Teacher self-regulation in one reading intervention

Compton-Lilly, Catherine. (2011). By the book and behind-the-glass: Teacher self-regulation in one reading intervention. Language Arts, 88(6), 429-438.

This article shows us how practices and texts used for professional development and program assessment can be two-edged swords, even when they are well-grounded in theory and seem to be effective. It all depends on how the teachers perceive those practices and texts. Those perceptions may be positive, negative, or a combination of both. Here, we get a look at professional development practices and texts used by 16 Reading Recovery teachers who were interviewed by the author about their perceptions of two aspects of Reading Recovery: 1) the practice of observing teachers behind a two-way mirror, and 2) the Reading Recovery guidebook that is used as a reference for implementing the Reading Recovery intervention. (Reading Recovery, developed by New Zealand’s Marie Clay in the 1970’s, is targeted at at-risk first graders and involves 10-20 weeks of highly structured one on one instruction for 30 minutes each day with a highly trained teacher.)

The purpose of the observations “behind the glass” is ostensibly to not only help the teacher being observed assess and improve instruction, but also to provide a stimulus for professional discussions that will benefit other Reading Recovery teachers who are observing the instruction. While this seems like a productive, authentic way of talking about improving teaching practice, many of the teachers Lilly-Compton interviewed found the observations extremely stressful. Indeed, who DOES like being observed and having one’s teaching practice analyzed and picked apart, as could easily happen with such sessions? Our professional identities and reputations are on the line, and maybe even our livelihoods. It seems like a brave and noble undertaking to open up one’s practice to close scrutiny, and because apparently all Reading Recovery teachers must undergo these observations, it is part of the shared experience of being part of the Reading Recovery “culture” and serves as a way of paying one’s dues and being initiated into that select culture. It’s definitely a high-stakes situation, with big rewards, but also big risks. Such a procedure would definitely need to be handled sensitively, and purposes would need to be clearly understood. If teachers are all taking risks and learning together, and if lessons that do not go as well as planned are not seen as teacher “failures”, that might be a good thing. However, Compton-Lilly’s data show that teachers did not always see the observations that way, and were not always sure of the purposes involved. A lot would seem to depend on the administrators’ perceptions of the observations’ purposes, and how this should all work.

Perceptions of the “guidebook” among teachers were even more problematic. Reading Recovery teachers interviewed here appeared to use the official guidebook as the sole resource for guiding practice. In a number of cases, religious metaphors were used by the interviewees, with the guidebook described as a “Bible” in several instances, and an alarming focus on being able to cite exact page numbers for various topics (like learning Bible verses “chapter and verse”!). The guidebook appears to have become reified as the embodiment of what is and is not Reading Recovery, even though Reading Recovery founder Marie Clay probably did not intend for the guidebook to become an inviolable script or some sort of sacred text. It is a guidebook, a resource, not Holy Scripture! The data here clearly show how even a good professional text can become dangerous if it is inflexibly used.

The teacher perceptions shared with us here point to some basics about human nature; it is not unusual for any kind of observation to be perceived defensively by the observed or as a power-building device by the observer, and those perceptions will be hard to combat. It is also basic human nature to seek certainty in an uncertain situation (as teaching is) by turning guidelines created by revered leaders into heuristics that become the “Bible” for practitioners. Fighting these natural tendencies requires a high level of thinking and a strong self-concept that could be difficult to achieve. Compton-Lilly’s research, which she tells us could apply to other programs beyond Reading Recovery, serves as a warning to all of us who develop and implement teacher professional development.