(nurturing, self-identity, promoting learning and guiding) and literacy beliefs. Another study (Massengill & Mahlios,
2008) identified four dominant metaphors of literacy among 52 preservice elementary teachers: sequence of
knowledge and skill, parts that come together as a whole, foundation of life, and journey. Twenty-three (or 44%) of
the preservice teachers wrote metaphors that related to content presented in the reading methods course.
These studies provide teacher researchers a basis for evaluating the value of metaphors. In addition, our own
theory is that metaphors may allow professors a more unfiltered view of preservice teachers’ philosophies than
asking them directly. During class, on tests, and in papers students tend to develop a stimulus-response recall of key
buzzwords professors use in class—for example: differentiated instruction, multi-cultural education, meet the needs
of individual children, balanced literacy instruction—that students might recite just because they know their literacy
professor “expects” these responses. By asking students to give metaphors, we hoped to delve beyond the typical
educational buzzwords.
Consequently, taking into account the theories of others and our own, we have chosen to replicate teaching
metaphors in our research for three reasons. First, we wanted to see if there were commonalities among the
metaphorical themes used by the respondents to describe teaching and literacy and if so, to identify the common
themes. Second, we wanted to examine the extent of variation among particular metaphorical themes among the
three universities. And third, we wanted to identify implications for literacy teacher educators. Following, we share
the results of two research studies conducted at our universities.
Methodology Study 1
Participants
There were three sets of preservice teachers in our pilot study who attended University A, University B, and
University C. Because they were simultaneously preservice teachers and students, both terms will be used
interchangeably in this article. For clarity and consistency, the researchers/professors of these three classes will be
assigned the same letter as their university: Professor A, Professor B, and Professor C.
The first group (University A) consisted of 21 preservice elementary education majors enrolled in the class
and practicum “Teaching Literacy K-3.” These participants were in their junior year at a large Midwestern research
university. Nineteen were female, all were White-European and of traditional age (20-22 years). The course met four
hours per week—two hours one day per week in an elementary school to interact with students and two hours
another day per week in the university classroom to gain information about how to teach literacy.
The second group (University B) had three European-American males, one African-American female, and 35
European-American females, which were split between two different sections of a class entitled, “Literacy
Assessment in the Early Childhood Classroom.” The senior-level early childhood majors in these two sections were
enrolled in an intensive methods “block” of six different classes focusing on how to teach reading, math, social
studies, and science. The first five weeks were spent in the university classroom. Then students spent one week and
several Fridays observing their cooperating teacher and conducting pre-assessments of their students. The students
then returned for four more weeks in the university classroom before devoting the last five weeks of the semester to
teaching units and administering follow-up reading assessments.
The third group (University C) consisted of 26 students of which 25 were female a