阅读与回应学生写作的推理过程

IF 1.1 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Literacy Research and Instruction Pub Date : 2022-04-06 DOI:10.1080/19388071.2022.2059419
Ellen E. Ballock, Vicki McQuitty
{"title":"阅读与回应学生写作的推理过程","authors":"Ellen E. Ballock, Vicki McQuitty","doi":"10.1080/19388071.2022.2059419","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper explores the reasoning processes expert teachers use when reading and responding to elementary students’ writing. We report findings from a qualitative multi-case study drawing on “think-aloud” interview data from seventeen participants as they read and responded to narrative, informational, and opinion/argumentative drafts. Findings indicate the teachers looked for the logic in student drafts, compared the drafts to an internalized “expected text,” responded to meaning before mechanics, framed their responses within an iterative process, and prioritized what they chose to respond to. The findings suggest three aspects of teacher reasoning that extend the current literature on effective reading and responding: (1) an appreciative stance grounded in a view of children as authors; (2) comparison to complex multi-faceted expected texts; and (3) reasoning in terms of iterative response cycles. By unpacking expert teacher reasoning, this study provides insight into what novice teachers must learn in order to formulate effective responses and points to the importance of future research into how to support this learning.","PeriodicalId":45434,"journal":{"name":"Literacy Research and Instruction","volume":"62 1","pages":"49 - 73"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reasoning Processes Involved in Reading and Responding to Students’ Writing\",\"authors\":\"Ellen E. Ballock, Vicki McQuitty\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/19388071.2022.2059419\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This paper explores the reasoning processes expert teachers use when reading and responding to elementary students’ writing. We report findings from a qualitative multi-case study drawing on “think-aloud” interview data from seventeen participants as they read and responded to narrative, informational, and opinion/argumentative drafts. Findings indicate the teachers looked for the logic in student drafts, compared the drafts to an internalized “expected text,” responded to meaning before mechanics, framed their responses within an iterative process, and prioritized what they chose to respond to. The findings suggest three aspects of teacher reasoning that extend the current literature on effective reading and responding: (1) an appreciative stance grounded in a view of children as authors; (2) comparison to complex multi-faceted expected texts; and (3) reasoning in terms of iterative response cycles. By unpacking expert teacher reasoning, this study provides insight into what novice teachers must learn in order to formulate effective responses and points to the importance of future research into how to support this learning.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45434,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Literacy Research and Instruction\",\"volume\":\"62 1\",\"pages\":\"49 - 73\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Literacy Research and Instruction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2022.2059419\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Literacy Research and Instruction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2022.2059419","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文探讨了专家教师在阅读和回应小学生写作时的推理过程。我们报告了一项定性多案例研究的结果,该研究利用了17名参与者在阅读和回应叙述性、信息性和意见/论证性草稿时的“大声思考”访谈数据。研究结果表明,教师在学生的草稿中寻找逻辑,将草稿与内化的“预期文本”进行比较,在机制之前回应意义,在迭代过程中构建他们的回应,并优先考虑他们选择回应的内容。研究结果表明,教师推理的三个方面延伸了现有的有效阅读和回应文献:(1)以儿童为作者的观点为基础的欣赏立场;(2)对复杂多面期望文本的比较;(3)基于迭代响应周期的推理。通过分析专家教师的推理,本研究提供了新教师必须学习什么才能制定有效的回应,并指出了未来研究如何支持这种学习的重要性。
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
Reasoning Processes Involved in Reading and Responding to Students’ Writing
ABSTRACT This paper explores the reasoning processes expert teachers use when reading and responding to elementary students’ writing. We report findings from a qualitative multi-case study drawing on “think-aloud” interview data from seventeen participants as they read and responded to narrative, informational, and opinion/argumentative drafts. Findings indicate the teachers looked for the logic in student drafts, compared the drafts to an internalized “expected text,” responded to meaning before mechanics, framed their responses within an iterative process, and prioritized what they chose to respond to. The findings suggest three aspects of teacher reasoning that extend the current literature on effective reading and responding: (1) an appreciative stance grounded in a view of children as authors; (2) comparison to complex multi-faceted expected texts; and (3) reasoning in terms of iterative response cycles. By unpacking expert teacher reasoning, this study provides insight into what novice teachers must learn in order to formulate effective responses and points to the importance of future research into how to support this learning.
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
Literacy Research and Instruction
Literacy Research and Instruction EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Literacy Research and Instruction (formerly Reading Research and Instruction), the official journal of the College Reading Association, is an international refereed professional journal that publishes articles dealing with research and instruction in reading education and allied literacy fields. The journal is especially focused on instructional practices and applied or basic research of special interest to reading and literacy educators. Peer Review Policy: All articles in this journal have undergone rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and anonymous refereeing by reviewers.
期刊最新文献
Empowering Adolescent Emergent Readers in Government Schools: An Exploration of Multimodal Texts as Pathways to Comprehension Novice Teachers’ Knowledge of Racial Literacies Effect of Dramatic Storytelling on Emergent Literacy in EFL: Evidence from the UAE Kindergartens Reexamining the Dolch Basic Sight Word List: Contemporary Considerations for Culturally Sustaining Approaches to Assess Sight Word Development A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Synchronous Paired Oral Reading Techniques in Elementary Classrooms
×
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