|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Intellectual Disciplines; Literacy; Middle School Students; High School Students; Comparative Analysis; Content Area Reading; Content Area Writing; Research; Expertise; Novices; Protocol Analysis; Grammar; Linguistics
Abstract:
Recently, it has been proposed that schools teach disciplinary literacy in science, mathematics, history, and literature classes as students move into middle school and high school. A disciplinary literacy approach emphasizes the specialized knowledge and abilities possessed by those who create, communicate, and use knowledge within each of the disciplines. This article compares disciplinary literacy with the more widely emphasized approach known as content area literacy and provides an analysis of the growing research base underlying the disciplinary literacy construct. Research studies on disciplinary literacy are drawn from expert-novice comparisons in which think-aloud data are collected, during reading, from experts (i.e., mathematicians, chemists, historians) and students, and from functional linguistics analyses of the features of the grammars in disciplinary texts to identify the purposes and cognitive and communicative approaches that these grammars reveal. Finally, implications for school programs and instruction are considered.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
 Show
 Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
 Help |
 Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2011-12-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Literacy; Differences; Intellectual Disciplines; History; Mathematics; Chemistry; Expertise; Context Effect; Protocol Analysis; Teamwork; Teacher Educators; Preservice Teacher Education; Text Structure; Investigations; Focus Groups; Secondary School Teachers; Interviews; Reader Text Relationship
Abstract:
The purpose of this study is to describe educationally relevant differences in literacy use among three subject-matter disciplines--history, chemistry, and mathematics. These analyses were drawn from an investigation of the teaching of disciplinary literacy in high schools. The purpose of the overall project was to improve the literacy-teaching preparation in a secondary preservice teacher education program, but this study sought to identify specific features of literacy and literacy use only in the three disciplines. It is the first expert-reader study to consider the reading of mathematicians and chemists (though other kinds of scientists have been studied in this way). To conduct this investigation, three teams were assembled, one for each discipline, including two disciplinary experts (historians, chemists, and mathematicians), two teacher educators who prepare high school teachers to teach those disciplines, and two high school teachers from each discipline. Using think-aloud protocols, transcripts from focus group discussions, a recursive process of member checking, and a cross-disciplinary consideration of reading approaches identified in each discipline, the study identified important differences in the reading behaviors of the six disciplinary experts. Although much of the work was based on think-aloud protocols and interviews with the disciplinary experts, the teachers and teacher educators participated with the disciplinary experts in focus-group discussions of the protocols, and their reactions and insights helped the disciplinary experts to articulate their approaches and to determine implications of the reading behaviors that were observed. Differences were evident in sourcing, contextualization, corroboration, close reading and rereading, critical response to text, and use of text structure or arrangement and graphics. (Contains 1 table.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2010-09-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Guides - Classroom - Teacher; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Reading Comprehension; Beginning Reading; Reading Instruction; Teaching Methods; Primary Education; Kindergarten; Grade 1; Grade 2; Grade 3; Reading Strategies; Text Structure; Discussion (Teaching Technique); Reading Material Selection; Learner Engagement; Student Motivation; Evidence; Educational Research
Abstract:
Strong reading comprehension skills are central not only to academic and professional success, but also to a productive social and civic life. These skills build the capacity to learn independently, to absorb information on a variety of topics, to enjoy reading, and to experience literature more deeply. Despite the growing demand for highly educated workers in today's information- and service-related economies, the proportion of American adults classified as "below basic" readers remained remarkably constant between 1992 and 2003. This guide, developed by a panel of experts, presents a set of evidence-based practices that teachers and other educators can use to successfully teach reading comprehension to young readers. The panel believes that students who read with understanding at an early age gain access to a broader range of texts, knowledge, and educational opportunities, making early reading comprehension instruction particularly critical. The guide also describes the evidence that supports the practices and gives examples of how they can be implemented in the classroom. Appendices include: (1) Postscript from the Institute of Education Sciences; (2) About the Authors; (3) Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest; and (4) Rationale for Evidence Ratings. (Contains 11 tables, 1 figure and 214 endnotes.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
 ERIC
Full Text (5265K)
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2009-01-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Writing Achievement; Reading Achievement; Academic Achievement; National Competency Tests; Emergent Literacy; Grade 4; Reading Instruction; Teaching Methods; Literature; Intervention; Reading Improvement; Writing Improvement; Meta Analysis; Early Childhood Education; Spelling; Reading Comprehension; Kindergarten
Abstract:
The National Assessment of Educational Progress reveals that 37 percent of U.S. fourth graders fail to achieve basic levels of reading achievement. In 1997, the U.S. Congress asked that a review of research be conducted to determine what could be done to improve reading and writing achievement. The resulting "Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read" (NICHD, 2000) has been influential in helping to guide reading-education policy and practice in the United States. However, that report did not examine the implications of instructional practices used with children from birth through age 5. To address this gap in the knowledge base, the National Early Literacy Panel (NELP) was convened. The panel was asked to apply a similar methodological review process to that used by the National Reading Panel (NRP) to issues of instructional practices for young children so that parents and teachers could better support their emerging literacy skills. The NELP report represents a systematic and extensive synthesis of the published research literature concerning children's early literacy skills. It provides educators and policymakers with important information about the early skills that are implicated in later literacy learning, as well as information about the type of instruction that can enhance these skills. The results also identify areas in which additional research is needed. The meta-analyses conducted by the panel showed that a wide range of interventions had a positive impact on children's early literacy learning.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
ERIC
Full Text (479K)
|
Author(s): |
Shanahan, Timothy |
Source: |
Community Literacy Journal, v3 n1 p3-20 Fall 2008 |
|
Pub Date: |
2008-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Literacy; Lifelong Learning; Literacy Education; Reading Instruction; Writing Instruction; Student Characteristics; Teaching Methods; Educational Quality; Student Motivation; Course Content; Phonological Awareness; Phonics; Vocabulary Development; Reading Comprehension; Reading Fluency
Abstract:
This article explores similarities in literacy learning across various life-span stages and considers what actions must be taken to improve literacy attainment and achievement, whether the delivery site is prekindergarten, elementary, secondary, adult, family, workplace, volunteer, or community literacy. The emphasis here is on what it takes to successfully teach individuals to read and write well separate from any adjustments that must be made for context or learner characteristics. Research is examined for five essential variables in literacy learning, including (1) amount of teaching; (2) content of instruction; (3) quality of instruction; (4) student motivation; and (5) alignment and support.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2008-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Opinion Papers; Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Teaching Methods; Content Area Reading; Adolescents; Literacy Education; Inferences; Reading Comprehension; Reading Strategies; Secondary School Teachers; Secondary Education
Abstract:
In this article, Timothy and Cynthia Shanahan argue that "disciplinary literacy"--advanced literacy instruction embedded within content-area classes such as math, science, and social studies--should be a focus of middle and secondary school settings. Moving beyond the oft-cited "every teacher a teacher of reading" philosophy that has historically frustrated secondary content-area teachers, the Shanahans present data collected during the first two years of a study on disciplinary literacy that reveal how content experts and secondary content teachers read disciplinary texts, make use of comprehension strategies, and subsequently teach those strategies to adolescent readers. Preliminary findings suggest that experts from math, chemistry, and history read their respective texts quite differently; consequently, both the content-area experts and secondary teachers in this study recommend different comprehension strategies for work with adolescents. This study not only has implications for which comprehension strategies might best fit particular disciplinary reading tasks, but also suggests how students may be best prepared for the reading, writing, and thinking required by advanced disciplinary coursework. (Contains 1 table.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
