读写语境中的分类:标记学生及其读写能力的短期和长期影响

IF 1.4 2区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Literacy Research Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.1177/1086296x221076610
E. Bauer, Catherine Compton-Lilly, Guofang Li, Aria Razfar
{"title":"读写语境中的分类:标记学生及其读写能力的短期和长期影响","authors":"E. Bauer, Catherine Compton-Lilly, Guofang Li, Aria Razfar","doi":"10.1177/1086296x221076610","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A common theme in this volume is labels and the impact of categories assigned to learners in educational contexts. These labels have an effect not only on students’ literacy learning experiences but also on their lifelong humanity. Whether the label indicates “dis/ability,” “individualist,” “refugee,” or “queer,” critical literacy studies such as those detailed in this volume have implications for both the field of literacy studies and on-the-ground pedagogy and assessment practices. In “Student-Generated Questions in Literacy Learning and Assessment,” Maplethorpe, Kim, Hunte, Vincett, and Jang examine students’ questioning abilities. Their findings indicate that the quality of student-generated questions is related to reading comprehension abilities and text genre as well as affective factors including attitude toward writing and students’ own perceived understanding of the texts they read. Implications for both pedagogy and assessment are discussed. In “‘I Don’t Feel I’m Capable of More’: Affect, Literacy, Dis/ability,” Bacon, Rolim, and Humaidan draw on case study data to examine the literacy trajectory of an individual with entangled identities. The authors examine the long-term effects of labeling and categorizing learners in the name of literacy education without attending to the human consequences of these practices. As they argue, affect theories, new materialism, and critical dis/ability studies serve as powerful tools for (re)framing research to reveal injustices that should not be overlooked. Drawing on this analysis, it is easy to see how this call to reframe data could similarly be used to interrogate labels related to race, refugee status, gender, and sexuality. In “Neoliberal Logics: An Analysis of Texas STAAR Exam Writing Prompts,” Jacobson and Bach apply critical discourse analysis to writing prompts used on statewide writing tests in Texas. They find that market-oriented, dominant discourses permeate the tests. Students are prompted to adopt perspectives that reinforce individualism and self-reliance over collective responses that prioritize social justice and deep understandings of genuine multiculturalism. The authors call for critical pedagogies that allow teachers and students to resist dominant discourses and the effects of these labels and discourses in academic settings. In “Afghan Refugee Children’s Literacy in a First-Asylum Country,” Sadiq takes on the understudied area of refugee students in first-asylum countries. He calls for literacy educators to better understand the ramifications of living in permanent resettlement locations. Often literacy practices in first-asylum countries are confined to homes and include reading and writing in multiple languages. Storytelling and religious Editorial","PeriodicalId":47294,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literacy Research","volume":"36 11","pages":"3 - 4"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Categorization in Literacy Contexts: The Short-Term and Long-Term Effects of Labeling Students and Their Literacies\",\"authors\":\"E. Bauer, Catherine Compton-Lilly, Guofang Li, Aria Razfar\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1086296x221076610\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A common theme in this volume is labels and the impact of categories assigned to learners in educational contexts. These labels have an effect not only on students’ literacy learning experiences but also on their lifelong humanity. Whether the label indicates “dis/ability,” “individualist,” “refugee,” or “queer,” critical literacy studies such as those detailed in this volume have implications for both the field of literacy studies and on-the-ground pedagogy and assessment practices. In “Student-Generated Questions in Literacy Learning and Assessment,” Maplethorpe, Kim, Hunte, Vincett, and Jang examine students’ questioning abilities. Their findings indicate that the quality of student-generated questions is related to reading comprehension abilities and text genre as well as affective factors including attitude toward writing and students’ own perceived understanding of the texts they read. Implications for both pedagogy and assessment are discussed. In “‘I Don’t Feel I’m Capable of More’: Affect, Literacy, Dis/ability,” Bacon, Rolim, and Humaidan draw on case study data to examine the literacy trajectory of an individual with entangled identities. The authors examine the long-term effects of labeling and categorizing learners in the name of literacy education without attending to the human consequences of these practices. As they argue, affect theories, new materialism, and critical dis/ability studies serve as powerful tools for (re)framing research to reveal injustices that should not be overlooked. Drawing on this analysis, it is easy to see how this call to reframe data could similarly be used to interrogate labels related to race, refugee status, gender, and sexuality. In “Neoliberal Logics: An Analysis of Texas STAAR Exam Writing Prompts,” Jacobson and Bach apply critical discourse analysis to writing prompts used on statewide writing tests in Texas. They find that market-oriented, dominant discourses permeate the tests. Students are prompted to adopt perspectives that reinforce individualism and self-reliance over collective responses that prioritize social justice and deep understandings of genuine multiculturalism. The authors call for critical pedagogies that allow teachers and students to resist dominant discourses and the effects of these labels and discourses in academic settings. In “Afghan Refugee Children’s Literacy in a First-Asylum Country,” Sadiq takes on the understudied area of refugee students in first-asylum countries. He calls for literacy educators to better understand the ramifications of living in permanent resettlement locations. Often literacy practices in first-asylum countries are confined to homes and include reading and writing in multiple languages. Storytelling and religious Editorial\",\"PeriodicalId\":47294,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Literacy Research\",\"volume\":\"36 11\",\"pages\":\"3 - 4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Literacy Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296x221076610\",\"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 Literacy Research","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296x221076610","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

本卷的一个共同主题是标签和在教育背景下分配给学习者的类别的影响。这些标签不仅影响了学生的识字学习经历,也影响了他们的终身人性。无论标签是否表明“残疾/能力”,“个人主义者”,“难民”或“酷儿”,批判性识字研究,如本卷中详细介绍的那些,对识字研究领域和实地教学法和评估实践都有影响。在《读写能力学习和评估中的学生提问》一书中,Maplethorpe、Kim、Hunte、Vincett和Jang研究了学生的提问能力。他们的研究结果表明,学生提出的问题的质量与阅读理解能力和文本类型以及情感因素(包括写作态度和学生自己对所读文本的感知理解)有关。讨论了对教学法和评估的影响。在《‘我觉得我没能力做更多’:情感、读写能力、残疾/能力》一书中,培根、罗林姆和胡马丹利用案例研究数据来研究一个身份纠缠的人的读写轨迹。作者研究了以扫盲教育的名义对学习者进行标签和分类的长期影响,而没有注意到这些做法对人类的影响。正如他们所说,影响理论、新唯物主义和批判性残疾/能力研究是(重新)构建研究框架的有力工具,可以揭示不应忽视的不公正现象。根据这一分析,很容易看出这种重新构建数据的呼吁如何类似地用于询问与种族、难民身份、性别和性有关的标签。在“新自由主义逻辑:德克萨斯州STAAR考试写作提示分析”中,Jacobson和Bach将批判性话语分析应用于德克萨斯州全州写作测试中使用的写作提示。他们发现,以市场为导向的主导话语渗透到考试中。学生们被鼓励采用加强个人主义和自力更生的观点,而不是优先考虑社会正义和对真正的多元文化主义的深刻理解的集体反应。作者呼吁采用批判性教学法,允许教师和学生抵制主导话语以及这些标签和话语在学术环境中的影响。在《阿富汗难民儿童在第一庇护国的读写能力》一书中,萨迪克探讨了第一庇护国难民学生中未被充分研究的领域。他呼吁扫盲教育工作者更好地理解生活在永久安置地点的后果。在第一庇护国,扫盲活动往往局限于家庭,包括用多种语言阅读和写作。讲故事与宗教社论
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
Categorization in Literacy Contexts: The Short-Term and Long-Term Effects of Labeling Students and Their Literacies
A common theme in this volume is labels and the impact of categories assigned to learners in educational contexts. These labels have an effect not only on students’ literacy learning experiences but also on their lifelong humanity. Whether the label indicates “dis/ability,” “individualist,” “refugee,” or “queer,” critical literacy studies such as those detailed in this volume have implications for both the field of literacy studies and on-the-ground pedagogy and assessment practices. In “Student-Generated Questions in Literacy Learning and Assessment,” Maplethorpe, Kim, Hunte, Vincett, and Jang examine students’ questioning abilities. Their findings indicate that the quality of student-generated questions is related to reading comprehension abilities and text genre as well as affective factors including attitude toward writing and students’ own perceived understanding of the texts they read. Implications for both pedagogy and assessment are discussed. In “‘I Don’t Feel I’m Capable of More’: Affect, Literacy, Dis/ability,” Bacon, Rolim, and Humaidan draw on case study data to examine the literacy trajectory of an individual with entangled identities. The authors examine the long-term effects of labeling and categorizing learners in the name of literacy education without attending to the human consequences of these practices. As they argue, affect theories, new materialism, and critical dis/ability studies serve as powerful tools for (re)framing research to reveal injustices that should not be overlooked. Drawing on this analysis, it is easy to see how this call to reframe data could similarly be used to interrogate labels related to race, refugee status, gender, and sexuality. In “Neoliberal Logics: An Analysis of Texas STAAR Exam Writing Prompts,” Jacobson and Bach apply critical discourse analysis to writing prompts used on statewide writing tests in Texas. They find that market-oriented, dominant discourses permeate the tests. Students are prompted to adopt perspectives that reinforce individualism and self-reliance over collective responses that prioritize social justice and deep understandings of genuine multiculturalism. The authors call for critical pedagogies that allow teachers and students to resist dominant discourses and the effects of these labels and discourses in academic settings. In “Afghan Refugee Children’s Literacy in a First-Asylum Country,” Sadiq takes on the understudied area of refugee students in first-asylum countries. He calls for literacy educators to better understand the ramifications of living in permanent resettlement locations. Often literacy practices in first-asylum countries are confined to homes and include reading and writing in multiple languages. Storytelling and religious Editorial
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
4.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The Journal of Literacy Research (JLR) is a peer-reviewed journal contributes to the advancement research related to literacy and literacy education. Current focuses include, but are not limited to: -Literacies from preschool to adulthood -Evolving and expanding definitions of ‘literacy’ -Innovative applications of theory, pedagogy and instruction -Methodological developments in literacy and language research
期刊最新文献
“What's Unexpected?” Interventionist Explanations of Dyslexia I’m Still Nigerian: Navigating Race Through Digital Literacies Literacy as Bearing Witness: Teachers Expanding Literacy Through Authentic and Hybrid Student Narratives From Silence to Testimonio: Latina Adolescents’ Agency in Writing Squeezed in: Writing Instruction Over Time
×
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