Pub Date : 2003-09-01DOI: 10.1080/19388070309558400
Gregory Bryan, Parker C. Fawson, D. Reutzel
Abstract Silent Sustained Reading (SSR) or some related form of silent, independent reading practice has been incorporated into the daily reading routines of many classrooms and schools across the nation. However, we, like other educators have discovered that simply providing all students the time to self‐select their own books and read silently did not guarantee that they would actually engage in silent reading. In fact, many schools have discontinued using SSR because some students are not engaged in reading during SSR time. This study used a multiple‐baseline across‐subjects research design to investigate the impact of literary discussions on the engagement of three fourth‐grade non‐engaged readers during SSR. While additional studies are required to produce generalizable findings, teachers should be aware that non‐engaged readers benefit from participation in short, teacher or adult‐led literary discussions during SSR time.
{"title":"Sustained silent reading: Exploring the value of literature discussion with three non‐engaged readers","authors":"Gregory Bryan, Parker C. Fawson, D. Reutzel","doi":"10.1080/19388070309558400","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070309558400","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Silent Sustained Reading (SSR) or some related form of silent, independent reading practice has been incorporated into the daily reading routines of many classrooms and schools across the nation. However, we, like other educators have discovered that simply providing all students the time to self‐select their own books and read silently did not guarantee that they would actually engage in silent reading. In fact, many schools have discontinued using SSR because some students are not engaged in reading during SSR time. This study used a multiple‐baseline across‐subjects research design to investigate the impact of literary discussions on the engagement of three fourth‐grade non‐engaged readers during SSR. While additional studies are required to produce generalizable findings, teachers should be aware that non‐engaged readers benefit from participation in short, teacher or adult‐led literary discussions during SSR time.","PeriodicalId":88664,"journal":{"name":"Reading research and instruction : the journal of the College Reading Association","volume":"43 1","pages":"47 - 73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19388070309558400","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59991119","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2003-09-01DOI: 10.1080/19388070309558398
Edward H. Behrman
Abstract This case study examines how adolescents’ fluidity in engaging multiple literacies and varied texts can be used to enhance learning of school subjects. Eighteen high‐school students were enrolled in a six‐week summer biology course that blended classroom instruction with visits to biology‐related workplaces. Working without a textbook, students were free to select any text sources needed to complete their community‐focused projects. Results indicated students placed a high reliance on human resources and the Internet, with limited use of print sources. Given evidence of modest to substantial conceptual understanding and high student satisfaction, educators may need to reconsider the role of print text in acquisition of content knowledge within the scope of adolescent literacy.
{"title":"Reconciling content literacy with adolescent literacy: Expanding literacy opportunities in a community‐focused biology class","authors":"Edward H. Behrman","doi":"10.1080/19388070309558398","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070309558398","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This case study examines how adolescents’ fluidity in engaging multiple literacies and varied texts can be used to enhance learning of school subjects. Eighteen high‐school students were enrolled in a six‐week summer biology course that blended classroom instruction with visits to biology‐related workplaces. Working without a textbook, students were free to select any text sources needed to complete their community‐focused projects. Results indicated students placed a high reliance on human resources and the Internet, with limited use of print sources. Given evidence of modest to substantial conceptual understanding and high student satisfaction, educators may need to reconsider the role of print text in acquisition of content knowledge within the scope of adolescent literacy.","PeriodicalId":88664,"journal":{"name":"Reading research and instruction : the journal of the College Reading Association","volume":"43 1","pages":"1 - 30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19388070309558398","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59990682","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2003-09-01DOI: 10.1080/19388070309558401
E. Sturtevant, Wayne M. Linek
Abstract This study explored the perspectives of nine content area middle and high school teachers who were considered to be “outstanding” teachers of their disciplines and who also used a variety of literacy practices in their instruction according to their principals and supervisors. The teachers were interviewed to explore their instructional beliefs and decision‐making, with specific attention to how these beliefs and decisions impacted their uses of literacy. A cross‐case analysis revealed that all nine teachers had strong beliefs about meeting students’ needs, the value of interpersonal relationships, and participating in lifelong learning. In addition, all of the teachers reported effects of personal experiences, context and/or teaching conditions, and professional development on their instruction. Overall, the teachers described both a strong focus on meeting student needs and a wide variety of uses of literacy within active teaching/learning environments.
{"title":"The instructional beliefs and decisions of middle and secondary teachers who successfully blend literacy and content","authors":"E. Sturtevant, Wayne M. Linek","doi":"10.1080/19388070309558401","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070309558401","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study explored the perspectives of nine content area middle and high school teachers who were considered to be “outstanding” teachers of their disciplines and who also used a variety of literacy practices in their instruction according to their principals and supervisors. The teachers were interviewed to explore their instructional beliefs and decision‐making, with specific attention to how these beliefs and decisions impacted their uses of literacy. A cross‐case analysis revealed that all nine teachers had strong beliefs about meeting students’ needs, the value of interpersonal relationships, and participating in lifelong learning. In addition, all of the teachers reported effects of personal experiences, context and/or teaching conditions, and professional development on their instruction. Overall, the teachers described both a strong focus on meeting student needs and a wide variety of uses of literacy within active teaching/learning environments.","PeriodicalId":88664,"journal":{"name":"Reading research and instruction : the journal of the College Reading Association","volume":"43 1","pages":"74 - 89"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19388070309558401","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59991529","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2003-06-01DOI: 10.1080/19388070309558393
R. Luftig
Abstract The effect of two short‐term summer school intervention programs on the reading achievement of elementary school children at‐risk for academic failure was investigated. Children entering second through fourth grades in the fall were given short (three week) reading intervention programs in either a school‐ based program or one designed and implemented by a for‐profit company specializing in enhancing student academic achievement. Children entering grade one in the fall did not receive the for‐profit condition. For children entering grade one, significant reading improvement was found for the summer based program over a control group which received no intervention. For children in grades two through four, children in both the school based and the for‐profit groups made significant reading improvement over the control group. The findings are discussed in terms of the relative costs and contact hours of the two intervention programs and the implications of the power of a short‐term relatively inexpensive school based program on the reading achievement of students seriously at‐risk for reading failure.
{"title":"When a little bit means a lot: The effects of a short‐term reading program on economically disadvantaged elementary schoolers","authors":"R. Luftig","doi":"10.1080/19388070309558393","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070309558393","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The effect of two short‐term summer school intervention programs on the reading achievement of elementary school children at‐risk for academic failure was investigated. Children entering second through fourth grades in the fall were given short (three week) reading intervention programs in either a school‐ based program or one designed and implemented by a for‐profit company specializing in enhancing student academic achievement. Children entering grade one in the fall did not receive the for‐profit condition. For children entering grade one, significant reading improvement was found for the summer based program over a control group which received no intervention. For children in grades two through four, children in both the school based and the for‐profit groups made significant reading improvement over the control group. The findings are discussed in terms of the relative costs and contact hours of the two intervention programs and the implications of the power of a short‐term relatively inexpensive school based program on the reading achievement of students seriously at‐risk for reading failure.","PeriodicalId":88664,"journal":{"name":"Reading research and instruction : the journal of the College Reading Association","volume":"42 1","pages":"1 - 13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19388070309558393","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59990654","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2003-06-01DOI: 10.1080/19388070309558396
Betty P. Hubbard, M. Simpson
Abstract Although theory details characteristics of self‐regulated learners, educators do not have a definitive sense of how to teach students self‐evaluation and reflection. This action research addresses that and other limitations in the extant literature, describing the strategies, planning, knowledge monitoring, calibrations, and performance of 24 undergraduates. Students were dually enrolled in a cognitively demanding history course and a strategic learning seminar taught by the researchers. Using the history content, students were taught task‐appropriate strategies designed to generate self‐reflection and internal feedback. Findings indicated that the most successful history students calibrated global planning processes and the type and level of self‐selected strategies sooner than did the other students. Implications suggest that self‐reflective practice takes a sustained period of time to be internalized by students, but should be routinely incorporated into traditional strategy instruction.
{"title":"The value of writing a “how‐to” book to reduce the writing apprehension of secondary preservice science and mathematics","authors":"Betty P. Hubbard, M. Simpson","doi":"10.1080/19388070309558396","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070309558396","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Although theory details characteristics of self‐regulated learners, educators do not have a definitive sense of how to teach students self‐evaluation and reflection. This action research addresses that and other limitations in the extant literature, describing the strategies, planning, knowledge monitoring, calibrations, and performance of 24 undergraduates. Students were dually enrolled in a cognitively demanding history course and a strategic learning seminar taught by the researchers. Using the history content, students were taught task‐appropriate strategies designed to generate self‐reflection and internal feedback. Findings indicated that the most successful history students calibrated global planning processes and the type and level of self‐selected strategies sooner than did the other students. Implications suggest that self‐reflective practice takes a sustained period of time to be internalized by students, but should be routinely incorporated into traditional strategy instruction.","PeriodicalId":88664,"journal":{"name":"Reading research and instruction : the journal of the College Reading Association","volume":"42 1","pages":"62 - 89"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19388070309558396","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59990914","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2003-06-01DOI: 10.1080/19388070309558394
C. Tower
Abstract This critical review of the literature addresses the following question: How can genre theory and research related to children's informational writing development inform future research on and instruction of informational writing at the elementary level? The review considers research on elementary (grades K‐6) children's production of information text. Taking a methodological perspective, it describes some trends in this body of work. Employing the notion of continua, it categorizes the literature in terms of four dimensions: Perspective (achievement—developmental). Context (consideration of purpose, audience, scaffolding, and exposure), Timepoint Sampling (single—multiple), and Research Design (qualitative—quantitative). It is argued that there are some salient differences between work conducted at the primary level (K‐3) and the intermediate level (4–6). Specifically, it is argued that the research at the primary level adopts a predominantly developmental perspective, while the research at the intermediate level tends to adopt an achievement perspective. It is concluded that the field would benefit from a wide variety of research methodologies and designs in the study of children's informational writing development and achievement. Implications for future research and for instruction are discussed.
{"title":"Genre development and elementary students’ informational writing: A review of the literature","authors":"C. Tower","doi":"10.1080/19388070309558394","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070309558394","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This critical review of the literature addresses the following question: How can genre theory and research related to children's informational writing development inform future research on and instruction of informational writing at the elementary level? The review considers research on elementary (grades K‐6) children's production of information text. Taking a methodological perspective, it describes some trends in this body of work. Employing the notion of continua, it categorizes the literature in terms of four dimensions: Perspective (achievement—developmental). Context (consideration of purpose, audience, scaffolding, and exposure), Timepoint Sampling (single—multiple), and Research Design (qualitative—quantitative). It is argued that there are some salient differences between work conducted at the primary level (K‐3) and the intermediate level (4–6). Specifically, it is argued that the research at the primary level adopts a predominantly developmental perspective, while the research at the intermediate level tends to adopt an achievement perspective. It is concluded that the field would benefit from a wide variety of research methodologies and designs in the study of children's informational writing development and achievement. Implications for future research and for instruction are discussed.","PeriodicalId":88664,"journal":{"name":"Reading research and instruction : the journal of the College Reading Association","volume":"42 1","pages":"14 - 39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19388070309558394","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59990695","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2003-06-01DOI: 10.1080/19388070309558395
S. Keehn
Abstract This study compared difference in treatment effect when Readers Theater was implemented in two ways as an instructional intervention to promote oral reading fluency in second grade classrooms. The study also examined the effect of Readers Theater intervention on students at different levels of reading ability. Multiple measures were used to determine pre‐ and post‐intervention performance of students in reading level, rate, accuracy, comprehension, and prosody. Although students in both treatment groups at all levels of ability made statistically significant gains, there was no significance between students who received Readers Theater plus explicit instruction in aspects of fluency and students who received only the Readers Theater intervention. Low achievement students made significant gains in rate, retelling, and expressiveness when compared with students at average and high achievement levels. High‐achievement readers made significant gains in measures of reading ability when compared with low‐ability readers.
{"title":"The effect of instruction and practice through readers theatre on young readers’ oral reading fluency","authors":"S. Keehn","doi":"10.1080/19388070309558395","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070309558395","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study compared difference in treatment effect when Readers Theater was implemented in two ways as an instructional intervention to promote oral reading fluency in second grade classrooms. The study also examined the effect of Readers Theater intervention on students at different levels of reading ability. Multiple measures were used to determine pre‐ and post‐intervention performance of students in reading level, rate, accuracy, comprehension, and prosody. Although students in both treatment groups at all levels of ability made statistically significant gains, there was no significance between students who received Readers Theater plus explicit instruction in aspects of fluency and students who received only the Readers Theater intervention. Low achievement students made significant gains in rate, retelling, and expressiveness when compared with students at average and high achievement levels. High‐achievement readers made significant gains in measures of reading ability when compared with low‐ability readers.","PeriodicalId":88664,"journal":{"name":"Reading research and instruction : the journal of the College Reading Association","volume":"42 1","pages":"40 - 61"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19388070309558395","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59990829","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2003-03-01DOI: 10.1080/19388070309558389
J. King, Susan P. Homan
Abstract Early literacy interventions have been critiqued for their propensity to remove “reading problems” from classroom teachers’ responsibility. In the current study, classroom teachers were trained so that they could provide specialized early intervention lessons to at‐risk students in their own classes. The results of the project compare favorably with a “pull‐out” model of early literacy intervention. In contrast to pull‐out approaches, this “push‐in” model of early literacy intervention may have pervasive effects on classroom teachers’ entire teaching repertoires.
{"title":"Early intervention in literacy: An in‐class model for teachers","authors":"J. King, Susan P. Homan","doi":"10.1080/19388070309558389","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070309558389","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Early literacy interventions have been critiqued for their propensity to remove “reading problems” from classroom teachers’ responsibility. In the current study, classroom teachers were trained so that they could provide specialized early intervention lessons to at‐risk students in their own classes. The results of the project compare favorably with a “pull‐out” model of early literacy intervention. In contrast to pull‐out approaches, this “push‐in” model of early literacy intervention may have pervasive effects on classroom teachers’ entire teaching repertoires.","PeriodicalId":88664,"journal":{"name":"Reading research and instruction : the journal of the College Reading Association","volume":"53 1","pages":"32 - 51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19388070309558389","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59990408","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2003-03-01DOI: 10.1080/19388070309558388
Linda L. Kucan, Isabel L. Beck
Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate three questions related to talk and text comprehension. First, does the context in which students talk about text during reading affect their comprehension? Second, does talking about texts with peers influence the quality of students’ talk? Third, do experiences talking about text influence individual thinking about text? To address these questions, the present study engaged students in pretest, intervention, and posttest sessions that involved reading and talking about expository texts. In the pretest, students thought aloud during reading. During the intervention, two discourse environments were set up: one for individuals and another for small groups. In both environments, students responded to prompts about the texts as they read them. In the posttest, students again thought aloud during reading. In all sessions, after reading, students were asked to recall and answer questions about what they had read. All student talk was recorded and subsequently transcribed. The intervention transcripts were analyzed for the kind of discourse that developed in the individual and group discourse environments. The pretest/posttest transcripts were analyzed to trace possible influences of the intervention discourse on the internal discourse, or thinking, of students. Student recall and question‐response scores were analyzed as indications of students’ comprehension. Although no condition‐related differences for after‐reading recall and question‐response scores were found, all students improved from pretest to posttest. Condition‐related differences were found in the kind of talk in which students engaged as they read the intervention texts. These differences in talk reappeared in the posttest transcripts. These results are discussed, and implications for research and for education are explored.
{"title":"Inviting students to talk about expository texts: A comparison of two discourse environments and their effects on comprehension","authors":"Linda L. Kucan, Isabel L. Beck","doi":"10.1080/19388070309558388","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070309558388","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate three questions related to talk and text comprehension. First, does the context in which students talk about text during reading affect their comprehension? Second, does talking about texts with peers influence the quality of students’ talk? Third, do experiences talking about text influence individual thinking about text? To address these questions, the present study engaged students in pretest, intervention, and posttest sessions that involved reading and talking about expository texts. In the pretest, students thought aloud during reading. During the intervention, two discourse environments were set up: one for individuals and another for small groups. In both environments, students responded to prompts about the texts as they read them. In the posttest, students again thought aloud during reading. In all sessions, after reading, students were asked to recall and answer questions about what they had read. All student talk was recorded and subsequently transcribed. The intervention transcripts were analyzed for the kind of discourse that developed in the individual and group discourse environments. The pretest/posttest transcripts were analyzed to trace possible influences of the intervention discourse on the internal discourse, or thinking, of students. Student recall and question‐response scores were analyzed as indications of students’ comprehension. Although no condition‐related differences for after‐reading recall and question‐response scores were found, all students improved from pretest to posttest. Condition‐related differences were found in the kind of talk in which students engaged as they read the intervention texts. These differences in talk reappeared in the posttest transcripts. These results are discussed, and implications for research and for education are explored.","PeriodicalId":88664,"journal":{"name":"Reading research and instruction : the journal of the College Reading Association","volume":"42 1","pages":"1 - 31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19388070309558388","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59989850","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2003-03-01DOI: 10.1080/19388070309558391
Peggy Daisey
Abstract The promise of writing in science and mathematics instruction will not be realized without teachers who enjoy writing and understand its potential. The purpose of this paper is to describe the effect of a nontraditional writing assignment, a “how‐to” book (which describes a process or how to do something) in a secondary content area literacy course, to decrease the writing apprehension of secondary preservice science and mathematics teachers. The 38 secondary preservice teachers in the study had significantly higher prewriting apprehension scores than their 136 preservice teacher classmates majoring in other subject areas. A MANCOVA analysis revealed that there was a statistically significant decrease in the writing apprehension of preservice mathematics and science teachers after authoring a “how‐to” book. Preservice teachers’ pre and postsurvey comments describe their change in attitude about writing and its value in their future instruction.
{"title":"The value of writing a “how‐to” book to reduce the writing apprehension of secondary preservice science and mathematics","authors":"Peggy Daisey","doi":"10.1080/19388070309558391","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070309558391","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The promise of writing in science and mathematics instruction will not be realized without teachers who enjoy writing and understand its potential. The purpose of this paper is to describe the effect of a nontraditional writing assignment, a “how‐to” book (which describes a process or how to do something) in a secondary content area literacy course, to decrease the writing apprehension of secondary preservice science and mathematics teachers. The 38 secondary preservice teachers in the study had significantly higher prewriting apprehension scores than their 136 preservice teacher classmates majoring in other subject areas. A MANCOVA analysis revealed that there was a statistically significant decrease in the writing apprehension of preservice mathematics and science teachers after authoring a “how‐to” book. Preservice teachers’ pre and postsurvey comments describe their change in attitude about writing and its value in their future instruction.","PeriodicalId":88664,"journal":{"name":"Reading research and instruction : the journal of the College Reading Association","volume":"42 1","pages":"118 - 75"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19388070309558391","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59990949","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：