Connecting Beliefs and Practice: Graduate Students’ Approaches to Theoretical Integration and Equitable Literacy Teaching

Abstract

This qualitative study explores how graduate students in literacy education connect theoretical frameworks to classroom practices. Grounded in Deweyan pragmatist philosophy and Kucer’s multidimensional literacy theory, researchers analyzed course assignments from online graduate students using document review and content analysis. The methodology employed a collaborative codebook and Dedoose software (version 10.0.25), utilizing descriptive coding to identify literacy practices and deductive coding to examine theoretical alignments. The results show patterns in how graduate students link theory and practice, with varying frequencies of references to different frameworks. Three main themes emerged: students’ integration of multiple theoretical frameworks, their focus on tailoring instruction to students’ developmental needs, and their emphasis on relating literacy instruction to students’ cultural backgrounds and personal experiences. The findings highlight participants’ preference for theoretical diversity, indicating a nuanced understanding of how multiple perspectives can inform teaching practices. This integration reflects educators’ recognition that complex classroom environments require diverse theoretical foundations, emphasizing the value of developing a new survey tool that captures this complexity. These results contribute to our understanding of how literacy educators integrate theoretical knowledge with practical classroom applications in contemporary educational settings.

1. Introduction

Twenty-eight years later, Mosenthal’s (1995) ideas still hold true—literacy is defined by agendas (as cited in Readence & Barone, 2000). Change is not new to literacy instruction. The initial Reading War debate began over 200 years ago and centered on code versus meaning in the early grades. Currently, several states are proposing or adopting legislation that requires evidence-based methods for early reading and systematic, explicit phonics instruction. Some may view the implementation of the Common Core English Language Arts standards, Balanced Literacy, and the Science of Reading as extensions of the Reading Wars.

Policy priorities surrounding the Science of Reading (SOR) and dyslexia screenings dominate our ongoing debate about equitable literacy practices. As of November 2024, 40 states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws and policies on evidence-based reading practices linked to the Science of Reading (SOR) and dyslexia screenings, marking a significant increase from earlier legislative efforts (Schwartz, 2021). The National Council on Teacher Quality (2024) reports that 32 states passed laws or adopted new policies related to evidence-based reading instruction from 2013 to July 2023, with around 30 states strengthening early literacy policies in 2024 alone.

At the same time, book bans are rising, and critical race theory, culturally responsive teaching, and social-emotional learning are under attack. Current research highlights these tensions. Grote-Garcia and Ortlieb (2023) found that while dyslexia and phonics instruction are rated as “extremely hot” topics, book bans and restrictions on diversity measures have created a polarized environment where social justice and equity approaches to literacy are simultaneously considered “very hot” yet face significant political challenges. “There is a danger, with the recent government discourse, that classroom practice is becoming a competence-based activity, and the rhetoric seems to suggest a return to the more traditional, didactic and examination-focused approaches which the likes of Dewey and Freire cautioned against” (Aubrey & Riley, 2022, p. 1). This polarized climate suggests potential challenges to decades of progress in developing more inclusive and equity-centered approaches to literacy education.

If the equitable teaching of reading involves integrating educators’ sociocultural practices and scholarship related to reading proficiencies (Jensen, 2021), a discussion linking theoretical orientations to literacy instruction and their effect on teachers’ practice should be part of our conversations about literacy pedagogy. Amid our current educational climate, are we encouraging teachers to explore and understand their own theoretical views on reading instruction? We know that “highly effective teachers align their educational practices with their theoretical beliefs,” and when instructional theories are made conscious, teachers can “discuss and reflect on them” (Tracey & Morrow, 2024, p. 6). This suggests that supporting teachers in critical self-reflection could be particularly valuable as they navigate competing demands and conflicting educational philosophies in today’s complex teaching environment.

This study examines graduate students enrolled in literacy education coursework because they hold a unique position as both experienced practitioners and active learners. With teaching experience ranging from 3 to 20 years, these educators bring significant classroom knowledge while also engaging with formal theoretical frameworks that may challenge or expand their existing beliefs. Graduate students in literacy programs often serve as teacher leaders, literacy coaches, or reading specialists, which means their theoretical perspectives can influence literacy instruction beyond their own classrooms. Understanding how these experienced educators conceptualize and apply theoretical frameworks during their graduate studies offers valuable insight for literacy teacher educators aiming to develop nuanced, multidimensional approaches to literacy instruction. Furthermore, exploring graduate students’ theoretical lenses provides a window into how practicing teachers navigate competing demands and translate theoretical knowledge into practical pedagogy in today’s classrooms, where teachers increasingly face de-professionalization through mandated curricula (Lare & Silvestri, 2023).

1.1. Conceptual Framework and Literature Review

Recent large-scale research supports the critical link between teacher beliefs and instructional practices, as demonstrated by Bleukx et al. (2024) through a path analysis of PIRLS 2021 data, which shows that teacher beliefs significantly shape instructional practices. Furthermore, meta-analytic research reveals a disconnect between teacher beliefs and PD outcomes. While professional development enhances teachers’ knowledge and skills in reading instruction, it has a limited effect on teacher beliefs (Filderman et al., 2025), despite beliefs being the strongest predictor of practice change. This gap highlights the significance of understanding the theoretical frameworks that shape teachers’ beliefs, as these frameworks serve as the lens through which teachers interpret new knowledge and make instructional decisions. Learning to read is a complex process, and no single theory explains all aspects of literacy (Aubrey & Riley, 2022; Kucer, 2014; Schoenfeld, 2006). A wide range of reading mandates and initiatives, along with opposition to social learning approaches, requires careful consideration of the theories and models that influence teachers’ instructional choices.

Given this complexity, theory helps literacy educators understand and explain the process of literacy learning, guiding reading instruction methods. Theoretical frameworks support literacy theory, comprising core concepts, definitions, and beliefs that provide a conceptual framework for understanding literacy teaching and learning. Examining various theories enables teachers to collaborate and deliver instruction that complements different theoretical approaches (Tracey & Morrow, 2024). Recent research demonstrates the practical value of drawing from multiple theoretical frameworks. For example, Zeng et al. (2025) found in their systematic review that vocabulary instruction for English learners benefits from a range of methods across multiple theoretical perspectives. Similarly, Kushki and Nassaji (2024) demonstrated that dynamic reading assessment approaches rooted in sociocultural theory can enhance second language learning and teaching. Additionally, work by Fuertes-Alpiste et al. (2023) on boundary crossing in educational contexts suggests that creating “situated boundary objects” or specific artifacts produced within particular socio-educational settings acts as a bridge between different domains of practice, enabling educators to move more effectively between various theoretical frameworks.

This study investigates how graduate students’ theoretical lenses shape their classroom practices through a layered theoretical framework. At the broadest level, this study draws on a Deweyan pragmatist perspective as its philosophical foundation. Dewey’s (1938) pragmatism posits that reasoned inquiry is rooted in human goals, values, and the dynamic interactions between individuals and their environments (Floden, 2009). His approach emphasizes problem-solving, critical thinking, and democratic engagement, positioning education as a vehicle for both personal development and societal advancement. Furthermore, Dewey’s concept of experience offers a compelling link between belief and practice: “Beliefs must be interpreted to generate action, and actions must be interpreted to generate beliefs” (Morgan, 2014, p. 1046). This pragmatist stance provides the rationale for examining the reciprocal relationship between graduate students’ theoretical beliefs and their pedagogical choices.

By connecting beliefs, actions, and the equitable, democratic teaching of reading, this study is further anchored in Dewey’s concept of democracy and education. Dewey (1916) conceptualized education as a continuous reconstruction of experience and defined democracy as a “mode of associated living, of joint communicated experience” (p. 94). He argued that diversity in thought, action, and interests helps dismantle barriers of class and race, contributing to the gradual development of a more inclusive society. Dewey regarded democracy and education not merely as institutional structures, but as a way of life grounded in communication, participation, and shared experience. Within this framework, the exploration of teachers’ theoretical orientations and beliefs, particularly those shaping their literacy pedagogical decisions, serves as a form of democratic deliberation, reflection, and collective decision-making (Harell, 2019).

Furthermore, we aim to broaden our focus beyond the “claims of others about reading development and pedagogy” to include the roles of situated knowledge, language, and culturally sustaining pedagogical practices (Tierney & Pearson, 2024, p. 124). Therefore, nested within this Deweyan pragmatist framework, Kucer’s Dimensions of Literacy (Kucer, 2014) serves as the primary analytical framework for examining literacy instruction in teacher education. Literacy is a multidimensional process involving cognitive, social, cultural, and affective dimensions, all of which interact during authentic reading and writing experiences (Kucer, 2014). Kucer’s framework operationalizes Dewey’s pragmatist philosophy by providing concrete dimensions through which to analyze how educators’ practices reflect their underlying theoretical perspectives. Kucer (2014) notes that different disciplines contribute unique viewpoints to literacy: linguistics focuses on language and textual structures, cognitive psychology centers on meaning-making processes, sociocultural theory highlights identity, power, and context, and developmental theory examines learning pathways and strategies. Collectively, these perspectives highlight the need for a dynamic, integrated approach to literacy instruction that honors its complex and interconnected nature. By using Kucer’s four dimensions as the organizing structure for analysis, this study examines which theoretical perspectives graduate students draw upon and how these perspectives align with or span across the cognitive, social, cultural, and affective dimensions of literacy.

Culturally responsive teaching methods emerge from teachers’ engagement with multiple theoretical perspectives. Research by Comstock et al. (2023) shows that teachers’ culturally responsive dispositions, covering their beliefs about diversity, equity, and the value of students’ cultural assets, are key predictors of how they implement culturally responsive practices. However, measuring these complex orientations is challenging, as Franco et al. (2024) discovered in their systematic review of culturally responsive teaching measures, emphasizing the need for more nuanced instruments that accurately reflect teachers’ diverse belief systems. Emerging frameworks further emphasize that culture is central rather than peripheral to reading development. Nash et al.’s (2025) Cultural Sustenance View of Reading (CSVR) conceptualizes reading through three interconnected domains of knowing, being, and reading, all mediated by culturally situated cognition. This framework challenges deficit views of marginalized communities and aligns with Kucer’s (2014) cultural dimension of literacy, which recognizes how power, identity, and context shape literacy practices.

One foundational instrument for measuring teacher beliefs about literacy instruction is the DeFord Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TORP), developed by DeFord (1985). Using a Likert scale, the TORP ascertains teachers’ beliefs about practices in reading instruction, with total scores indicating which approach participants lean toward: decoding, skills, whole language, or a blended philosophy. Since its inception, researchers have used the TORP to investigate the relationship between teacher theoretical orientation and developmentally appropriate practice (Ketner et al., 1997); teachers’ beliefs and practices in language arts (Elliott-Johns, 2005; Grisham, 2000); preservice teachers’ beliefs about literacy instruction (Many et al., 2002); teachers’ use of “visioning” to clarify beliefs (Squires & Bliss, 2004); the impact of teacher education on preservice beliefs (Shaw et al., 2007); and literacy coaches’ role in changing teacher beliefs and practices (Stephens et al., 2011).

Although these studies establish the TORP as a valuable tool for examining teacher beliefs, the decades since its development have brought new understandings of literacy instruction that call for updated instruments to fully capture the scope of modern educators’ theoretical frameworks. Sailors et al.’s (2014) intervention study in Malawi further illustrates this complexity, showing that culturally grounded professional development significantly influenced teachers’ beliefs and self-efficacy but led to limited changes in observed practices during the implementation period. The researchers’ critical reflection highlighted tensions between directive “training” models and the culturally sustaining, teacher-empowerment approaches they valued in theory. This gap between espoused beliefs and enacted practices underscores the challenges that current frameworks must address. Unlike the TORP, which positions theoretical orientations as competing approaches, Kucer’s multidimensional framework (Kucer, 2014) recognizes that effective literacy instruction requires integration across cognitive, social, cultural, and affective dimensions. This study, therefore, employs Kucer’s framework to examine how graduate students conceptualize and enact this integration. Given the multifaceted nature of literacy instruction and evidence that teacher beliefs remain resistant to change despite their central role in practice (Filderman et al., 2025), frameworks that position culture as central to reading development (Nash et al., 2025), and that account for the complex relationship between beliefs and practices in context (Sailors et al., 2014) are essential for serving diverse student populations. This integration of pragmatist philosophy, multidimensional literacy theory, and culturally responsive pedagogy provides the theoretical foundation for exploring how graduate students’ evolving belief systems shape their instructional choices as they develop into effective literacy educators.

1.2. Summary and Research Questions

This basic qualitative study investigates graduate students’ theoretical orientations and beliefs about literacy teaching and learning, and how their theoretical lenses guide their classroom pedagogy. As a part of course requirements, student participants completed two assignments that linked their current or previous classroom literacy practices to various theoretical frameworks and lenses. The questions to be answered by this study are as follows:

Research Question One (RQ1): In what ways do graduate students connect their teaching practices with theoretical lenses and models in their Reading Matrix assignments?

Research Question Two (RQ2): Which lenses on reading do graduate students personally align to within their Personal Lens on Reading assignment, and how do these alignments reflect integration across multiple dimensions of literacy?

2. Materials and Methods

This study investigated the theoretical lenses of graduate students, who were the participants, and how these lenses were linked to their real-world literacy teaching practices, as well as how they influenced their classroom practices. The selection of qualitative research methods aligns with both the Deweyan pragmatist epistemology and Kucer’s multidimensional framework, which together emphasize the contextual, experiential, and integrated nature of literacy learning. The researchers selected qualitative research methods, including content analysis of assignments and thematic analysis, based on the belief that people construct knowledge as they “engage in and make meaning of an activity, experience, or phenomenon.” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015, p. 23). Our approach to data analysis mirrors the study’s theoretical foundation. Just as Dewey argued that beliefs and actions are mutually constitutive, and just as Kucer’s framework shows how multiple dimensions of literacy interact dynamically, the qualitative methodology enables examination of how participants integrate theoretical perspectives into coherent pedagogical approaches.

2.1. Participants and Data Collection Methods

Twenty-one online graduate and non-degree-seeking students enrolled in a 500-level literacy course participated in this study. The course is offered as part of the Masters in Elementary Education: Reading program and the Reading Specialist Certification Graduate Certificate. Participants ranged in age from 25 to 40 years, with teaching experience spanning from 3 to 20 years. This study examines two required assignments, Reading Matrix and Personal Lens on Reading paper, from two previous course sections taught by the principal investigator. Course assignments were collected, de-identified and anonymized by a data handler, and then reviewed as the primary data sources.

2.2. Data Analysis Process

The data analysis was conducted in two phases, utilizing document review and content analysis methods, which enabled researchers to analyze unstructured data and elucidate its meaning and communicative roles within the data’s sources (Krippendorff, 2013). To increase the validity and rigor of the research, the researchers created a codebook (Hemphill & Richards, 2018) organized according to Tracey and Morrow’s (2024) theoretical orientations, which span Kucer’s (2014) four dimensions of literacy, with definitions, keywords, and applications for each theoretical lens categorized within the appropriate dimension(s). This organizational structure implemented the study’s main theoretical framework, allowing for a systematic analysis of participants’ theoretical focus across different dimensions. Additionally, to ensure the results accurately reflected participants’ experiences and perspectives, researchers analyzed the assignments independently and then collaborated to compare and discuss their interpretations.

Table A1. Summary of Data Collection and Analysis Methods by Question.

Research Questions	Source/ Participants	Data Collection	Data Analysis Methods
RQ1. How do graduate students generally connect teaching practices and theoretical lenses or theories in their Reading Matrix assignments?	Reading Matrix assignment Graduate students	Document review	Content Analysis: Descriptive coding Researcher Created Codebook Dedoose (cross-platform application designed for qualitative and mixed-methods research)
RQ2. Which lenses on reading do graduate students personally align to within their Personal Lens on Reading assignment (e.g., behavioral, constructivist, developmental, affective, social learning, cognitive processing, etc.)?	Personal Lens on Reading paper Graduate students	Document review	Content Analysis: Deductive Values (beliefs) coding and emerging themes Basic quantitative analysis of the qualitative codes to identify patterns and areas of emphasis within the dataset.

in Appendix A summarizes the data collection and analysis methods, outlining how and what data type was collected and analyzed to address each research question.

To address RQ1, the researchers employed a descriptive coding method to identify and summarize the core topics and literacy practices presented in the Reading Matrix assignment. Participants’ submissions were analyzed using a researcher-developed codebook and coded within Dedoose (2016), a cross-platform application designed for qualitative and mixed-methods research. Drawing on Tracey and Morrow’s (2024) framework, the parent codes represented overarching theoretical lenses, while the child codes captured specific theories and models nested within those lenses.

Regarding RQ2, the researchers employed a mixed coding approach that combined both deductive and inductive methods (Saldaña, 2021) as a methodological approach to examine participants’ beliefs in based on specific theoretical lenses, while also allowing themes to emerge from the data itself. This dual coding strategy was selected because it enables both a systematic analysis aligned with established theoretical frameworks and an openness to unexpected patterns within participants’ responses. The coding process unfolded in several stages.

The analytical process adhered to established qualitative research methods, starting with raw data from literacy educators’ reflective “Personal Lens on Reading” (PLoR) papers as the primary source. Through close reading and initial familiarization with the data, core beliefs about teaching and learning were identified within the narratives. For example, statements like “you cannot teach one of these concepts without connecting them to the others” and “children learned naturally, driven by their own interests, passions, and curiosity” reflected the participants’ fundamental pedagogical beliefs. These beliefs were then open-coded, translating them into descriptive phrases such as “blends systematic and meaning-making approaches,” “recognizes varied developmental timelines,” and “builds on students’ home experiences.”

This inductive coding process allowed patterns to emerge from the data itself rather than imposing predetermined categories. As coding progressed, axial coding techniques were used to group similar descriptive phrases, revealing relationships and patterns across all the documents. Phrases about combining different instructional approaches merged into the first theme of combining multiple theoretical perspectives; phrases emphasizing individualization formed the second theme of differentiated, development-based instruction; and phrases highlighting responsiveness to student backgrounds consolidated into the third theme of integrating personal and cultural backgrounds with student interests.

Concurrently, deductive values coding was applied to examine how participants’ beliefs aligned with pre-established theoretical frameworks. Data units were deductively categorized using pre-established theoretical lenses and frameworks (Tracey & Morrow, 2024); spanning Kucer’s (2014) four dimensions (linguistic, cognitive, sociocultural, and developmental), to ensure alignment with the study’s conceptual foundation. Finally, the researchers engaged in reflective analysis to synthesize collective meaning, creating concise descriptive phrases that captured the participants’ value orientations and theoretical connections, which enabled themes to emerge from the data. This deductive analysis specifically examined whether participants demonstrated integration across dimensions or favored certain dimensions over others in their personal theoretical orientations.

Following the completion of values coding using Saldaña’s approach, the researchers conducted basic quantitative analysis of the qualitative codes to identify patterns and areas of emphasis within the dataset. The resulting frequencies indicate how often particular ideas or beliefs were expressed, rather than the intensity or strength of those beliefs. This quantification serves as a descriptive tool to aid interpretation and does not imply statistical significance. To ensure the reliability of the study, the researchers emphasized consistency of findings and transparency of the research process. A clear trail was maintained, documenting how data were collected, coded, and interpreted, which enhanced the credibility of the analysis and allowed others to understand and trust the methodological rigor.

To ensure the trustworthiness and credibility of the thematic analysis, the researchers used intercoder reliability strategies. Two researchers independently coded the same data, then compared their codes and themes to find areas of agreement and disagreement. When discrepancies occurred, the researchers engaged in negotiated consensus discussions to clarify interpretations and resolve differences. Throughout this process, the researchers referred to codebooks with operational definitions. They also created memos documenting coding decisions and how disagreements were resolved to provide transparency and improve the dependability and confirmability of the findings. The systematic progression from raw data through initial coding, pattern recognition, and theme development illustrates the thematic analysis approach.

3. Results

3.1. Research Question One

How do graduate students generally connect teaching practices, theoretical lenses, and models in their Reading Matrix assignments? The Reading Matrix Assignment was created to help participants organize their research engagement throughout the course. Students completed a digital matrix for each reading, which included APA-formatted references, main ideas (theories and summaries), and connections to reading, writing, and language. The matrix also required a section called “Classroom Connection & One Personal Connection Statement,” which served as the primary data source for this study. For this section, participants were asked to (1) explain how the text links theory to classroom applications and (2) provide a personal connection statement explaining how their own practice relates to the theory. The assignment used first-person language in its directions and example: “I use brainstorming to activate background information.” This personal connection requirement ensured the data reflected teachers’ actual self-reported classroom practices rather than general theoretical knowledge.

Table A2. RQ1 Results.

Research Question	RQ1. How do graduate students generally connect teaching practices and theoretical lenses or theories in their Reading Matrix assignments? Source: Reading Matrix Assignment Coding: Descriptive Teaching Practices
Theoretical Lenses (root codes)	Models/Theories (child codes)	Teacher Classroom Literacy Practices
Chapter 2: Early Lenses	Associationism	Brainstorming Circle maps Venn diagrams Making Connections Graphic organizers Activating prior knowledge Create lessons around interests KWL charts Acronym Connect their previous learning to new information Using examples from things like video games, songs, and movies that they are familiar with
	Mental Discipline Theory	Reread Rehearse Repeat Memorize, repetition/brain muscle building Drill and practice
	Structuralism	Strategies change the way text is perceived Avoiding alternative methods to present information Manipulating print to aid student’s success in reading
	Unfoldment	Literacy Area Play Kinesthetic materials Students graph their growth in portfolio folders, which also include our benchmark/test scores, goals, and student work. Allowing students to learn through their curious exploration. Increasing students’ interests to enhance the skills and concepts being taught.
Chapter 3: Behavioral	Classical Conditioning	Link to what they need to know (e.g., cleaning, lining up) Using sounds to commence transitions Promote positive feelings towards desired reading behaviors in the classroom. Using a bell when it is time to transition to a new literacy location. I also use it when using our smart board to play songs. Acknowledge/celebrate students individually whenever they grow from one week to the next.
	Connectionism	Classroom procedures and expectations Praise Rewards Recognize positive choices Treasure box Behavior Charts Direct instruction with feedback Structuring lessons based on student understanding Earn a star (positive reinforcement) Build and help transfer skills Breaking down the learning of new skills into manageable components
	Operant Conditioning	Read-Aloud Token economy/Rewards Focusing on one skill at a time and building on it Sequencing skills Positive reinforcement to encourage the use of academic language Direct instruction
Chapter 4: Constructivist	Inquiry	Problem-solving circle Dialogue Literature circles- to deepen comprehension and build language.
	Transactional	Using background knowledge through videos and short read-alouds.
	Schema	Teaching thematically KWL Charts Scaffold by building on students’ knowledge Create challenging lessons based on current developmental levels Webbing Activate background knowledge Linking key ideas Use ideas from the world around them Visualize ideas/Graphic organizers Different types of reading materials (wordless books, word walls, word cards, birthday chart, attendance chart) Connect new learning to what they already know Story mapping
	Psycholinguistic	Phonemes are introduced each week in a progression Phonemes help decode larger words Guided reading groups
	Metacognitive	Teacher think-aloud Students use cognitive skills to problem-solve Help provide a foundation for a child’s academic achievement
	Whole Language Theory	Help provide students with the quality materials they need through books, writing materials, assignments, and opportunities for students to work together.
Chapter 5: Developmental	Stage Models	High-interest, high-quality, and developmentally appropriate texts Master skills before moving on
	Theory of Literacy Development	Leveled reading of different topics and themes Library area and a writing area with a wide variety of books, flannel stories, and puppets for them to practice new vocabulary words Active play Use Big Books and shared reading lessons
	Theory of Cognitive Development	Writing about and reflecting on reading Shared reading in small groups Circle times to model language, reading, and writing skills Use assessment to gain insight into how students view the world and interpret information, and then use this understanding to improve their abilities and guide them to the next level of thinking. Transition from the use of concrete ideas to students using more abstract ideas. Use developmentally appropriate materials for the concrete operational period. Auditory discrimination.
	Family Literacy Theory	Help provide the quality materials needed for students through books, writing materials, assignments, and opportunities for students to work together. Help families know how to participate in their student’s literacy success through communication and assignments and opportunities that include family members.
Chapter 6: Physiological	Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs	Make sure the students have had food and water and have been changed. Care for my students’ needs and their well-being. Provide students with extra recess so that they get the opportunity to play and engage with their peers. Regular sleep and physical activity Safe and comfortable environment in the classroom
	Triune Brain	Meeting students’ physiological needs is the most important first step to helping them find success in school.
	The Nutritional Lens	Breakfast programs for students Snack time Emphasize the importance of a daily quick assessment of the children to my teachers. Ask how their nights were, and find out if they have eaten in the morning. Incorporate small brain breaks. Stress the importance of bringing a healthy snack and drinking plenty of water, especially on these heat advisory days. Snack recess- all students must be outdoors, moving their bodies away from the classroom. Have a variety of healthy choice snacks for students.
	Sleep-Dependent Memory Consolidation	Thematic lesson on healthy food, eating, and physical activity Nap time If you know a child hasn’t slept, you may notice signs of that, such as hyperactivity or an inability to engage in the lesson. There are no tests on Mondays or after the holidays.
	Exercise Hypothesis	PE and recess to encourage physical activity Keep an extra stash of snacks in my classroom as well as give students breaks between heavy subjects to go run outside or practice stretches inside the classroom. Have a lot of movement and repetition. I use brain breaks regularly in my classroom each year, regardless of grade level.
Chapter 7: Affective	Attachment Theory	I spend about 5 min chatting with the kids, making sure everyone has a chance to talk and validate their feelings and what they have to share—even the silliest of stories are important to the kids! Give one-to-one attention to listen to feelings and guide through changes at home. Teach them skills to express and regulate their emotions. Guided reading groups.
	Engagement Theory	Offer a variety of children’s books in the classroom library to engage students. Giving students hands-on activities that they are interested in is a great way for teachers to get their students actively engaged in their learning.
	Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs	Regulation station Creating a safe space for students and helping get young minds ready to learn. Notice when a student did not get enough sleep. Support a positive, supportive classroom culture. I always want students to feel safe, welcome and cared for. I provide and encourage students to eat healthy snacks, and I am helping students get the nutrients needed for their brains to learn. Teachers can help provide the quality materials needed for students through books, writing materials, assignments, and opportunities for students to work together.
	Student–Teacher Relationships	Teachers establish trust, respect, and openness so that children feel comfortable and know they will be listened to. Take the first day to get to know my students and so that they can get to know me. I cannot expect a group of students to learn anything from me without genuinely knowing me. Connect with students. An important part of my students’ development is their social-emotional well-being. Nothing is more critical in an early childhood classroom than the relationships between child and caregiver and caregiver and parent. Show each student how he or she is cared for by a person in the community and show positive feelings for him or her.
Chapter 8: Social Learning	Critical Race theory, Critical literacy theory, Multiliteracies (or new literacies),—No excerpts
	Social Constructivism	Breaking down skills into doable tasks with support. ZPD Sentence frames Classroom library where students can “check out” books. Students write letters to fellow students, teachers, or other staff. Collaborative Strategic Reading
	Social learning (or cognitive) theory	Teacher modeling Model writing skills by indicating that what we say can be written down to make meaning of the drawing.
	Sociocultural	Activating background knowledge through videos and short read-alouds. Students are encouraged to share something from home that is significant to them. Value Funds of Knowledge Holidays around the world Students learn from each other during literature group (the social components)
	Sociolinguistics	Activating background knowledge through videos and short read-alouds. Encouraging code-switching Paired reading & shared readings Process writing
Chapter 9: Cognitive-Processing	Automatic Information-Processing Model	Pre, during, and after reading activities Content-specific vocabulary Guided reading Developmentally appropriate books Individualized instruction Running records Pre-teach key vocabulary Small group anecdotal notes about student progress on reading skills
	Double-Deficit Hypothesis, Dual-Route Cascaded Model, Information-Processing Model, Interactive Model, Interactive-Compensatory Model, Neuroscientific Contributions, Parallel Distributed Processing Model/Connectionism—No excerpts
	Gough’s Model	Teach students letter sounds before trying to teach them to write. Using letters and sounds to learn how to read, write, and speak. Shapes of letters Hearing loss, speech delays, and auditory processing disorders that may later lead to difficulties in reading.
	Phonological-Core Variable Difference Model	Encourage students with cognitive disabilities to participate.

in the Appendix A presents the classroom practices described by the participants in relation to each lens or model. For example, for the Constructivist lens, classroom practices found under the child code, Schema, include teaching thematically; KWL Charts; scaffolding by building on students’ knowledge; creating lessons based on current developmental levels; webbing; activating background knowledge; linking key ideas; using ideas from the world around them; visualizing ideas/graphic organizers; different types of reading materials; connecting new learning to their prior knowledge; and story mapping. Notably, when participants connected a classroom practice with each lens in the matrix, patterns of associated child codes emerged, indicating which theories and models teachers most connected their practice to (see Figure 1).

To visualize the answer to RQ1 differently, researchers also utilized a packed code cloud (Figure 2) that displays, by size, the relative occurrence of child codes throughout the descriptive coding process. The more a child’s code is applied, the larger its text is in the cloud. The resulting bar graph and packed code cloud revealed that students most frequently connected their practice to the child codes of Schema theory, Sociocultural, Sociolinguistics, Associationism, Mental Discipline theory, the Nutritional Lens, and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. However, there were no child code excerpts for Critical Race theory and Critical Literacy theory. This finding aligns with recent research by Smith et al. (2023) showing that Australian elementary teachers hold widely divergent, eclectic, and self-contradictory beliefs about reading instruction, with little consensus about effective practices. The absence of explicit discussions surrounding critical perspectives in our data reflects broader tensions documented by Kehoe and McGinty (2024), who found that while teachers demonstrate strong self-efficacy beliefs for teaching reading, they often lack foundational knowledge about reading acquisition and show limited implementation of differentiation and accommodations for diverse learners.

3.2. Research Question Two

Which lenses on reading do graduate students personally align to within their Personal Lens on Reading signature assignment? The assignment prompted students to align with a minimum of one and a maximum of three of the lenses on reading and explain how the lenses influence their classroom literacy instruction. To answer this question, researchers used deductive coding based on the lenses and models outlined in Tracey and Morrow’s (2024) text and values coding to analyze participants’ signature assignments and identify their theoretical beliefs about literacy instruction. Through this analysis, we identified three main themes: the importance of theoretical pluralism in teaching methods, the need to adapt literacy instruction to each student’s developmental level and needs instead of using one-size-fits-all approaches, and the crucial role of connecting literacy teaching to students’ lived experiences, cultural backgrounds, and personal interests to improve both engagement and understanding.

3.2.1. Theoretical Pluralism

The participants in this study discussed how they employed a pragmatic approach by intentionally integrating multiple theoretical frameworks rather than adhering to a single perspective. Examples include combining Social Learning theory through peer collaboration in research circles with Developmental approaches in guided reading groups, while incorporating Constructivist schema theory discussions. Others blended Behavioral direct instruction with systematic reinforcement alongside Constructivist creative writing centers and thematic units. This integration also appears in merging Unfoldment theory’s focus on natural curiosity with Emergent Literacy’s developmental continuum and combining Physiological lens considerations like sleep-dependent memory consolidation with Developmental approaches to age-appropriate literacy activities.

3.2.2. Differentiated, Development-Based Instruction

The participants focused on meeting students at their individual developmental levels instead of applying uniform grade-level expectations. This includes using guided reading groups for students needing differentiated instruction and literature circles for those ready for advanced texts. Participants offered one-on-one intensive sessions tailored to the needs of students, focusing on phonics, fluency, and/or comprehension work. They used multiple assessment tools to determine each child’s level before providing systematic skill building. The approach acknowledges that literacy development varies among children, with some becoming fluent readers before third grade and others taking longer to reach that level.

3.2.3. Culturally Responsive Literacy Connections

Participants’ literacy instruction connected to students’ lived experiences, cultural backgrounds, and personal interests to boost engagement and understanding. This includes using students’ diverse family experiences to help classmates understand texts, building instruction around children’s natural curiosity about topics like science and nature, incorporating environmental print from students’ communities, and designing thematic lessons that draw on students’ cultural knowledge. These methods ensure that diverse perspectives and experiences become central parts of literacy learning rather than afterthoughts to fixed curricula.

3.3. Quantification as a Descriptive Tool

Additionally, the pie chart (Figure 3) displays which lens or lenses the participant students aligned to within their signature assignment, noting the number of occurrences of each lens using percentages, and illustrates that participants primarily aligned their classroom literacy practices with Constructivist and Developmental lenses. When a Constructivist lens was chosen and combined with another lens, it was most frequently combined with Developmental, Behavioral, Social, or Early Lenses on reading. When a Developmental lens was chosen and combined with another lens, it was most frequently combined with Constructivist, Social, Affective, Early, or Physiological lenses.

4. Discussion

The results illustrate that, through reflection and inquiry, participants discovered which lens or combination of lenses they align with and integrate into their practice, as well as how they utilize their knowledge of students to make instructional choices that span theoretical orientations. As Schoenfeld (2006) pointed out, “the serious job of theory refinement is to say how well a theory works in which conditions” (as cited in Tracey & Morrow, 2024, p. 12). Meaning, interpretation, and pedagogical choice cannot be segregated from experience or context.

Furthermore, in alignment with Tracey and Morrow (2024), there is value in adopting, exploring, and combining multiple lenses. The following excerpt illustrates how one student aligned their classroom practices with both Constructivist and Behavioral lenses.

Another way I see the Constructivist theory in play in my own classroom is using literature circles and partner reading. We are constantly thinking aloud, re-wording others’ answers/explanations and building on others’ thinking as well. It’s very community-based, everyone is involved and most importantly, I feel as though everyone is learning something, be that from the text or from someone else. This is where I align with the Behavioral lens. Students are motivated to answer questions or be more involved with the activity when the stress of not having to be “right” is taken away, but also celebrating everyone’s participation. Although a student’s answer may be incorrect, as a group we can scaffold one another and celebrate/“reward” the students for trying. I see this the most during phonics lessons.

This educator bridges theoretical divides with insight. Constructivist elements, such as literature circles, think-alouds, and collaborative meaning-making, where students build on each other’s ideas, are clearly explained. What is particularly discerning is how they have addressed the potential risk that some students might withdraw out of fear of being wrong, which could hinder collaborative knowledge construction. Additionally, their use of Behavioral principles is more nuanced than traditional Behaviorism. Instead of depending on external rewards for correct answers, they emphasize “rewarding” participation and effort. This creates a positive reinforcement cycle that supports the Constructivist aim of active engagement. Connecting to phonics lessons is effective because it aligns with research demonstrating the success of behavioral methods in phonics instruction, where the systematic, sequential presentation of phonological and phonics components supports structured literacy teaching.

Another participant describes how they combine theories found under the Early and Developmental lenses to meet their students’ literacy needs.

The Unfoldment lens in the classroom promotes daily discussions throughout the day, and following children’s lead helps their language skills unfold naturally. In addition, the Emergent Literacy lens allows me to know what level of language development my students are in and provide appropriate language experiences to continue their vocabulary growth.

Drawing on their knowledge of students’ early reading development, this educator described how they combined it with their belief in the power of children’s natural interest and curiosity. The Unfoldment lens, characterized by its child-centered focus and recognition of innate language development processes, aligns conceptually with Emergent Literacy’s developmental perspective because both recognize that literacy develops in predictable patterns while honoring individual differences. However, a notable tension exists, as Emergent Literacy involves deliberate scaffolding and “appropriate language experiences,” which is more structured than pure Unfoldment theory might indicate. This educator uses developmental knowledge to guide when and how to intervene naturally.

Returning to Dewey’s (1916) concept of democratic deliberation, adopting a framework of theories and models can potentially create equitable teaching in reading. The intermingling of “cultural and generic aspects of teaching interact in context to foster meaningful opportunities” for all students to develop as readers (Jensen, 2021, p. S71). As literacy educators face multiple reading mandates and initiatives, coupled with resistance to Social Learning lenses on reading, they need a clear understanding of the theories and models that drive their instructional choices. Furthermore, “a broad understanding of theories also allows educators to coordinate and provide complementary instructional interventions from a wide variety of theoretical orientations” (Tracey & Morrow, 2024, p. 5).

As an illustration, the Science of Reading (SOR) has become a policy priority in the authors’ state due in part to the fact that “the research literature specifies a discrete set of reading instruction strategies that early and elementary teachers could feasibly use, in a predictable developmental sequence” (Hindman et al., 2020, p. 3). However, one criticism of the Science of Reading is that the evidence base is less clear on how to teach those subskills “when teachers have 25–30 young students with disparate background knowledge and interests in the same classroom and are also addressing other academic and social skills” (Hindman et al., 2020, p. 3). In this example, educators may greatly benefit from combining the SOR model with Social Learning lenses, emphasizing social interaction and Social Constructivism. The findings reveal that participants expressed beliefs consistent with integrated theoretical perspectives, valuing connections across multiple dimensions of literacy rather than isolated theoretical approaches. An expanded survey instrument that determines teachers’ beliefs about practices in reading instruction can build teachers’ knowledge of theories and lend itself to exploration and reflection in support of integration.

4.1. Future Research Directions

The findings from this study highlight important implications for future research. Participants’ alignment with integrated theoretical perspectives, which mainly included Constructivist and Developmental lenses combined with other frameworks, shows that practicing educators value multidimensional approaches to literacy instruction. However, this study also identified gaps in participants’ engagement with specific theoretical frameworks, most notably the lack of child code excerpts for Critical Race Theory and Critical Literacy theory, despite their proven importance in supporting diverse learners (Kehoe & McGinty, 2024). These findings emphasize the need for a more comprehensive tool that can systematically assess teachers’ beliefs about practices in reading instruction across all theoretical frameworks.

Our understanding of literacy and literacy instruction has evolved beyond the TORP’s original framework of decoding, skills, and whole language to become more specific, nuanced, and cognizant of theoretical overlap. This evolution aligns with Goodwin and Jiménez’s (2021) call to extend reading instruction theories with emphasis on “complexity, equity, and multiple perspectives” (p. S8), and Tracey and Morrow’s (2024) argument for using multiple theoretical lenses. As Tracey and Morrow explain through their metaphor of painters creating different artistic interpretations of the same scene, “each of the theories and models provides a unique and valuable view on the topic” (p. 12)).

Widely used instruments, such as the TORP, may overlook crucial distinctions in teachers’ theoretical applications. For example, a teacher with a skills orientation score may fall between decoding and whole language perspectives, but this broad categorization doesn’t reveal which specific Constructivist models inform their practice, whether Dewey’s problem-based learning concepts or Rosenblatt’s individualized text interpretation theories. This limitation reflects what Pearson (2001) described as the “radical middle,” a position that recognizes the need for “a higher order level of analysis” where seemingly opposing approaches to literacy instruction can be viewed as “complements rather than alternatives to one another” in effective teaching practice (p. 3). Moody et al. (2018) further highlighted this gap through their critical analysis of vocabulary instruction theories, finding significant disconnections between theoretical frameworks and classroom practices and suggesting teachers need a more nuanced understanding of how theories translate into instructional strategies.

While the Reading Matrix and Personal Lens on Reading assignments in this study offered rich qualitative data about participants’ self-reported links between theory and practice, a validated survey tool would enable researchers to: (1) identify patterns in theoretical knowledge gaps across larger groups of educators, (2) analyze the relationship between teachers’ theoretical beliefs and their actual instructional practices with diverse student populations, and (3) evaluate whether professional development efforts effectively expand teachers’ theoretical repertoires beyond their preferred lenses. Such a tool could expand on the three themes of theoretical pluralism, differentiated instruction, and culturally responsive connections by measuring how well teachers demonstrate integrated theoretical understanding across Kucer’s (2014) four dimensions: linguistic, cognitive, sociocultural, and developmental.

Therefore, the Theoretical Orientation of Literacy Instruction Scale (TOLIS) is currently being developed and validated to help teachers identify their dominant theoretical perspectives and beliefs about reading instruction practices, as well as how they might apply this knowledge in professional learning focused on reflection and contextual literacy pedagogy. This instrument will enhance teachers’ understanding of theories and facilitate exploration of theoretical and pedagogical diversity by collecting contextual information to examine how professional development opportunities (e.g., LETERS), context, grade level, and discipline relate to theoretical perspectives and classroom practices. Building on this qualitative study’s findings about the gaps in engagement with critical theoretical perspectives and the need for a more nuanced understanding of teachers’ theoretical integration, TOLIS will address the criticism of Science of Reading implementation noted by Hindman et al. (2020) regarding the difficulty of applying discrete reading strategies in diverse, complex classroom environments.

This qualitative study represents the first step in this larger project. TOLIS is currently in the peer review stage and will be followed by pilot studies, validity and reliability measures, and revisions. The instrument statements will build on existing TORP-based studies while expanding to incorporate the multiple lenses, theories, and models outlined in Tracey and Morrow’s (2024) Lenses on Reading. In alignment with Reinking and Yaden (2021), we contend that in fields focused on practical application, theoretical frameworks are most valuable when they offer actionable direction to enhance literacy skills, rather than simply developing scholarly knowledge of literacy concepts.

4.2. Limitations of the Research

This study has several limitations. Like all qualitative research, which recognizes that reality is socially constructed and aims to understand unique perspectives rather than seeking broad generalizations, these limitations reflect the methodology’s epistemological stance.

First, the small sample size and single geographic location limit how well the results can be applied to a larger population. However, qualitative research addresses this concern through transferability by providing detailed, rich descriptions that enable readers to assess the relevance and applicability of the findings to their own settings.

Second, relying on self-reported teaching practices can introduce response bias. Using only two course assignments as data sources may not fully represent the scope and complexity of participants’ teaching across different contexts and student groups. The lack of classroom observations is a gap, as future research might include direct observation to complement the self-reported data and provide a more comprehensive view of how theoretical beliefs are translated into actual teaching practices.

Third, the instructor’s dual role as both course facilitator and principal investigator might have affected participants’ responses, potentially leading to social desirability bias. However, several design features helped reduce this concern: the assignment explicitly encouraged authentic rather than idealized descriptions, participants could freely choose one to three orientations that reflected their beliefs and practices, and data were anonymized. Future research should include additional measures to verify the findings and address these limitations.