How secondary social studies teachers define literacy and implement literacy teaching strategies: A qualitative research study

Joshua L. Kenna, William B. Russell, B. Bittman
{"title":"How secondary social studies teachers define literacy and implement literacy teaching strategies: A qualitative research study","authors":"Joshua L. Kenna, William B. Russell, B. Bittman","doi":"10.18546/HERJ.15.2.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Educational standards have changed rapidly and drastically in the past several years, including an increased focus on literacy within the social studies. Using data from a four-month qualitative study, this article examines how seven secondary social studies teachers talked about and\n defined literacy, and how those perspectives informed their pedagogical choices. The enquiry is a response to two areas: first, the many and varied definitions of literacy found in the literature (for example, content area literacy, multiliteracies and media literacy); and second, the added\n attention given to disciplinary literacy in the widely adopted Common Core State Standards. We found these teachers had four common elements when talking about and defining literacy: (1) reading comprehension; (2) writing fluidity; (3) skills; and (4) vocabulary. Additionally, we discovered\n that teachers discussed using four kinds of literacy teaching strategies: (1) content area reading strategies; (2) disciplinary reading strategies; (3) writing strategies; and (4) dialogue strategies. However, we determined that the teachers' theoretical understanding of literacy had only\n minor influence on their pedagogical choices. Instead, we found overarching assessments such as an end-of-course, advanced placement or state-wide reading exam had greater influence on the pedagogical choices the teachers made. The findings suggest that the effort to expand literacy instruction\n into the disciplines is still a work in progress, which falls in the hands of teacher educators and professional development providers.","PeriodicalId":409544,"journal":{"name":"History Education Research Journal","volume":"2020 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History Education Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18546/HERJ.15.2.05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Educational standards have changed rapidly and drastically in the past several years, including an increased focus on literacy within the social studies. Using data from a four-month qualitative study, this article examines how seven secondary social studies teachers talked about and defined literacy, and how those perspectives informed their pedagogical choices. The enquiry is a response to two areas: first, the many and varied definitions of literacy found in the literature (for example, content area literacy, multiliteracies and media literacy); and second, the added attention given to disciplinary literacy in the widely adopted Common Core State Standards. We found these teachers had four common elements when talking about and defining literacy: (1) reading comprehension; (2) writing fluidity; (3) skills; and (4) vocabulary. Additionally, we discovered that teachers discussed using four kinds of literacy teaching strategies: (1) content area reading strategies; (2) disciplinary reading strategies; (3) writing strategies; and (4) dialogue strategies. However, we determined that the teachers' theoretical understanding of literacy had only minor influence on their pedagogical choices. Instead, we found overarching assessments such as an end-of-course, advanced placement or state-wide reading exam had greater influence on the pedagogical choices the teachers made. The findings suggest that the effort to expand literacy instruction into the disciplines is still a work in progress, which falls in the hands of teacher educators and professional development providers.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中学社会教师如何定义识字及实施识字教学策略:一项质性研究
在过去几年中,教育标准发生了迅速而巨大的变化,包括在社会研究中更加注重识字。本文利用一项为期四个月的定性研究的数据,考察了七名中学社会研究教师如何谈论和定义识字,以及这些观点如何影响他们的教学选择。这项调查是对两个方面的回应:第一,文献中对识字的许多不同定义(例如,内容领域识字、多种识字和媒介识字);第二,在被广泛采用的国家共同核心标准中,对学科素养给予了更多的关注。我们发现这些教师在谈论和定义读写能力时有四个共同的要素:(1)阅读理解;(2)书写流畅性;(3)技能;(4)词汇。此外,我们发现教师讨论使用四种素养教学策略:(1)内容区阅读策略;(2)学科阅读策略;(3)写作策略;(4)对话策略。然而,我们确定教师对识字的理论理解对他们的教学选择只有很小的影响。相反,我们发现课程结束、大学先修课程或全州阅读考试等总体评估对教师的教学选择有更大的影响。研究结果表明,将识字教学扩展到各个学科的努力仍在进行中,这落在教师、教育者和专业发展提供者的手中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Designing historical empathy learning experiences: a pedagogical tool for history teachers Four design principles for student learning of substantive historical concepts – a realistic review study School trips to historical sites: students’ cognitive, affective and physical experiences from visits to Auschwitz Students’ views of historical significance – a narrative literature review The Great Irish Famine in Irish and UK history textbooks, 2010–2020
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1