Fair or Foul? Interrogating the Role of Baseball Knowledge in Studies of Knowledge and Comprehension

IF 3.9 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Dan Reynolds, Courtney Hattan, Marissa Markham
{"title":"Fair or Foul? Interrogating the Role of Baseball Knowledge in Studies of Knowledge and Comprehension","authors":"Dan Reynolds, Courtney Hattan, Marissa Markham","doi":"10.1002/rrq.575","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although links between knowledge and reading comprehension have been widely documented for decades, recent translational science publications (e.g., teacher journals, books, and podcasts) have increasingly referred to studies using baseball (a sport popular in the USA) as a proxy for knowledge to explain those links, especially within science of reading conversations. We conducted a systematic review of studies using baseball as a proxy for knowledge necessary for reading comprehension. After a comprehensive literature search, we found 19 “baseball studies” dating from 1978 to 2018, and we note that 13 of the studies used the same two measures of baseball knowledge. When analyzing the measures of baseball knowledge, we find that their measures of knowledge focused heavily on vocabulary and baseball trivia, and we found that the most common baseball comprehension text was deceptively complex. Finally, we analyzed recent research citations of baseball studies and found that even the oldest baseball studies are commonly cited in high‐impact journals even in the last 5 years. Ultimately, we interrogate the role of baseball knowledge studies in the body of research on knowledge and comprehension. We also call for reliance on non‐baseball studies to create a knowledge–comprehension translational science likely to positively impact systematic curricular improvement, move the science of reading conversation forward, and improve all students' reading comprehension at scale.","PeriodicalId":48160,"journal":{"name":"Reading Research Quarterly","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","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.575","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

Although links between knowledge and reading comprehension have been widely documented for decades, recent translational science publications (e.g., teacher journals, books, and podcasts) have increasingly referred to studies using baseball (a sport popular in the USA) as a proxy for knowledge to explain those links, especially within science of reading conversations. We conducted a systematic review of studies using baseball as a proxy for knowledge necessary for reading comprehension. After a comprehensive literature search, we found 19 “baseball studies” dating from 1978 to 2018, and we note that 13 of the studies used the same two measures of baseball knowledge. When analyzing the measures of baseball knowledge, we find that their measures of knowledge focused heavily on vocabulary and baseball trivia, and we found that the most common baseball comprehension text was deceptively complex. Finally, we analyzed recent research citations of baseball studies and found that even the oldest baseball studies are commonly cited in high‐impact journals even in the last 5 years. Ultimately, we interrogate the role of baseball knowledge studies in the body of research on knowledge and comprehension. We also call for reliance on non‐baseball studies to create a knowledge–comprehension translational science likely to positively impact systematic curricular improvement, move the science of reading conversation forward, and improve all students' reading comprehension at scale.
公平还是犯规?质疑棒球知识在知识和理解研究中的作用
尽管几十年来,知识与阅读理解之间的联系已被广泛记录,但最近的转化科学出版物(如教师期刊、书籍和播客)越来越多地提及使用棒球(美国流行的一项运动)作为知识替代物来解释这些联系的研究,尤其是在阅读会话科学领域。我们对以棒球作为阅读理解所需知识的替代物的研究进行了系统回顾。经过全面的文献检索,我们找到了从 1978 年到 2018 年的 19 项 "棒球研究",我们注意到,其中 13 项研究使用了相同的两种棒球知识测量方法。在分析棒球知识的测量方法时,我们发现它们对知识的测量主要集中在词汇和棒球琐事上,而且我们发现最常见的棒球理解文本具有欺骗性的复杂性。最后,我们分析了近期棒球研究的引用情况,发现即使是最古老的棒球研究,在过去 5 年中也经常被高影响力期刊引用。最后,我们对棒球知识研究在知识和理解研究中的作用进行了拷问。我们还呼吁依靠非棒球研究来创建知识-理解转化科学,从而对系统课程改进产生积极影响,推动阅读对话科学向前发展,并大规模提高所有学生的阅读理解能力。
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