探究教师的阅读知识、信仰与教学实践

IF 2 2区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Research in Reading Pub Date : 2023-11-15 DOI:10.1111/1467-9817.12440
Karen F. Kehoe, Anita S. McGinty
{"title":"探究教师的阅读知识、信仰与教学实践","authors":"Karen F. Kehoe,&nbsp;Anita S. McGinty","doi":"10.1111/1467-9817.12440","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The delivery of effective, evidence-based early reading instruction depends partially on teachers' knowledge about reading acquisition, development and pedagogy. Research shows that teachers often perform poorly on measures of reading-related knowledge, often cited as one explanation for a gap between reading research and classroom practice. Studies on whether teacher knowledge improves student learning by leading to higher quality reading instruction, however, have produced mixed results. It is theorised that teachers' beliefs also influence the enactment of knowledge in the classroom. Yet, in comparison with investigations into teachers' knowledge, less research has explored their beliefs, including self-efficacy expectancy beliefs. Finally, although conceptually both knowledge and beliefs shape teachers' instruction, researchers often have limited information about what actually occurs in the classroom.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We examined the knowledge, self-efficacy expectancy beliefs, self-reported literacy practices and literacy lesson plans of 34 teachers of reading working in four neighbouring rural schools to identify both strengths and areas for growth as potential targets for professional learning efforts.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>On average, teachers demonstrated low levels of knowledge, reported implementation of both evidence-based and nonevidence-based practices and planned lessons that included only some essential components of a comprehensive early reading programme, with limited evidence of differentiation. Teachers overwhelmingly reported strong self-efficacy expectancy beliefs for teaching beginning readers.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Addressing the reading research-to-practice gap requires deeper understanding of not only teachers' knowledge but also their perceived self-efficacy and instructional practices. Such information is critical for designing and delivering targeted, effective professional development.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47611,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Reading","volume":"47 1","pages":"63-82"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring teachers' reading knowledge, beliefs and instructional practice\",\"authors\":\"Karen F. Kehoe,&nbsp;Anita S. McGinty\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1467-9817.12440\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>The delivery of effective, evidence-based early reading instruction depends partially on teachers' knowledge about reading acquisition, development and pedagogy. Research shows that teachers often perform poorly on measures of reading-related knowledge, often cited as one explanation for a gap between reading research and classroom practice. Studies on whether teacher knowledge improves student learning by leading to higher quality reading instruction, however, have produced mixed results. It is theorised that teachers' beliefs also influence the enactment of knowledge in the classroom. Yet, in comparison with investigations into teachers' knowledge, less research has explored their beliefs, including self-efficacy expectancy beliefs. Finally, although conceptually both knowledge and beliefs shape teachers' instruction, researchers often have limited information about what actually occurs in the classroom.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We examined the knowledge, self-efficacy expectancy beliefs, self-reported literacy practices and literacy lesson plans of 34 teachers of reading working in four neighbouring rural schools to identify both strengths and areas for growth as potential targets for professional learning efforts.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>On average, teachers demonstrated low levels of knowledge, reported implementation of both evidence-based and nonevidence-based practices and planned lessons that included only some essential components of a comprehensive early reading programme, with limited evidence of differentiation. Teachers overwhelmingly reported strong self-efficacy expectancy beliefs for teaching beginning readers.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Addressing the reading research-to-practice gap requires deeper understanding of not only teachers' knowledge but also their perceived self-efficacy and instructional practices. Such information is critical for designing and delivering targeted, effective professional development.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47611,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Research in Reading\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"63-82\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Research in Reading\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9817.12440\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research in Reading","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9817.12440","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

提供有效的、循证的早期阅读教学部分取决于教师对阅读习得、阅读发展和阅读教学法的了解。研究表明,教师在阅读相关知识的测试中往往表现不佳,这通常被认为是阅读研究与课堂实践之间存在差距的一个解释。然而,关于教师知识是否通过提高阅读教学质量来改善学生学习的研究结果好坏参半。从理论上讲,教师的信念也会影响课堂知识的实施。然而,与对教师知识的调查相比,对其信念的研究较少,包括对自我效能期望信念的研究。最后,尽管从概念上讲,知识和信念都塑造了教师的教学,但研究人员对课堂上实际发生的事情往往知之甚少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Exploring teachers' reading knowledge, beliefs and instructional practice

Background

The delivery of effective, evidence-based early reading instruction depends partially on teachers' knowledge about reading acquisition, development and pedagogy. Research shows that teachers often perform poorly on measures of reading-related knowledge, often cited as one explanation for a gap between reading research and classroom practice. Studies on whether teacher knowledge improves student learning by leading to higher quality reading instruction, however, have produced mixed results. It is theorised that teachers' beliefs also influence the enactment of knowledge in the classroom. Yet, in comparison with investigations into teachers' knowledge, less research has explored their beliefs, including self-efficacy expectancy beliefs. Finally, although conceptually both knowledge and beliefs shape teachers' instruction, researchers often have limited information about what actually occurs in the classroom.

Methods

We examined the knowledge, self-efficacy expectancy beliefs, self-reported literacy practices and literacy lesson plans of 34 teachers of reading working in four neighbouring rural schools to identify both strengths and areas for growth as potential targets for professional learning efforts.

Results

On average, teachers demonstrated low levels of knowledge, reported implementation of both evidence-based and nonevidence-based practices and planned lessons that included only some essential components of a comprehensive early reading programme, with limited evidence of differentiation. Teachers overwhelmingly reported strong self-efficacy expectancy beliefs for teaching beginning readers.

Conclusions

Addressing the reading research-to-practice gap requires deeper understanding of not only teachers' knowledge but also their perceived self-efficacy and instructional practices. Such information is critical for designing and delivering targeted, effective professional development.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Journal of Research in Reading provides an international forum for researchers into literacy. It is a refereed journal, principally devoted to reports of empirical studies in reading and related fields, and to informed reviews of relevant literature. The journal welcomes papers researching issues related to the learning, teaching and use of literacy in a variety of contexts; papers on the history and development of literacy; papers about policy and strategy for literacy as related to children and adults. Journal of Research in Reading encourages papers within any research paradigm and from researchers in any relevant field such as anthropology, cultural studies, education, history of education, language and linguistics, philosophy, psychology and sociology.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Issue Information What we have learned about learning to read in a digital age and children's contemporary reading experiences Evidence-based support provided to struggling readers in later primary years in the UK: A scoping review Using orthographic support to reduce the impact of noise on oral vocabulary learning in adults
×
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