Secondary Teachers' Adolescent Literacy Efficacy and Professional Learning Considerations

IF 3.9 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Rachelle S. Savitz, Jennifer D. Morrison, Christy Brown, Charlene Aldrich, Britnie D. Kane, W. Ian O'Byrne
{"title":"Secondary Teachers' Adolescent Literacy Efficacy and Professional Learning Considerations","authors":"Rachelle S. Savitz, Jennifer D. Morrison, Christy Brown, Charlene Aldrich, Britnie D. Kane, W. Ian O'Byrne","doi":"10.1002/rrq.521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"School requests for professional learning on adolescent literacy often stem from low or stagnant reading scores on state standardized assessments and legislative policies that require educators to complete literacy coursework. These decisions are often made without teachers' voices, requiring teachers to take coursework they may not need or learn in ways that may not align with their content. To address this issue, we used our researcher-created and validated survey to ask middle and high school teachers about their self-efficacy toward adolescent literacy based on various professional characteristics, such as years of experience, teaching grade levels, content area, and taking the state-required literacy courses. Findings note that certain disciplines are more efficacious toward specific literacy practices, and taking state-required literacy courses is insignificant. Our implications are written for literacy scholars and teacher educators to revisit the premise and promise of the 2017 ILA Standards for K-12 literacy professionals, emphasizing the importance of being cognizant of our strengths and highlighting the need for collaborating and learning with and from teachers of all disciplines.","PeriodicalId":48160,"journal":{"name":"Reading Research Quarterly","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reading Research Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.521","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

School requests for professional learning on adolescent literacy often stem from low or stagnant reading scores on state standardized assessments and legislative policies that require educators to complete literacy coursework. These decisions are often made without teachers' voices, requiring teachers to take coursework they may not need or learn in ways that may not align with their content. To address this issue, we used our researcher-created and validated survey to ask middle and high school teachers about their self-efficacy toward adolescent literacy based on various professional characteristics, such as years of experience, teaching grade levels, content area, and taking the state-required literacy courses. Findings note that certain disciplines are more efficacious toward specific literacy practices, and taking state-required literacy courses is insignificant. Our implications are written for literacy scholars and teacher educators to revisit the premise and promise of the 2017 ILA Standards for K-12 literacy professionals, emphasizing the importance of being cognizant of our strengths and highlighting the need for collaborating and learning with and from teachers of all disciplines.
中学教师青少年素养效能感与专业学习考量
学校对青少年读写能力专业学习的要求,往往源于州标准化评估的阅读分数较低或停滞不前,以及立法政策要求教育工作者完成读写能力课程。这些决定往往是在没有教师意见的情况下做出的,要求教师参加他们可能不需要的课程,或者以与他们的内容不一致的方式学习。为了解决这个问题,我们使用了我们的研究者创建和验证的调查,询问初中和高中教师关于他们对青少年识字的自我效能基于不同的专业特征,如多年的经验,教学年级水平,内容领域,并采取国家要求的扫盲课程。研究结果表明,某些学科对特定的扫盲实践更有效,而参加国家要求的扫盲课程是微不足道的。我们的建议是为扫盲学者和教师教育工作者撰写的,旨在重新审视2017年国际教育协会K-12扫盲专业人员标准的前提和承诺,强调认识我们的优势的重要性,并强调与所有学科的教师合作和学习的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: For more than 40 years, Reading Research Quarterly has been essential reading for those committed to scholarship on literacy among learners of all ages. The leading research journal in the field, each issue of RRQ includes •Reports of important studies •Multidisciplinary research •Various modes of investigation •Diverse viewpoints on literacy practices, teaching, and learning
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信