Moves that matter: dialogic writing assessment and literary reading

IF 0.8 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Sarah W. Beck, Karis Jones, Scott Storm, J. Torres, Holly Smith, Meghan Bennett
{"title":"Moves that matter: dialogic writing assessment and literary reading","authors":"Sarah W. Beck, Karis Jones, Scott Storm, J. Torres, Holly Smith, Meghan Bennett","doi":"10.1108/etpc-12-2019-0167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis study aims to explore and provide empirical evidence for ways that teachers can simultaneously support students’ literary reading and analytic writing through dialogic assessment, an approach to conferencing with writers that foregrounds process and integrates assessment and instruction.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis study uses qualitative research methods of three high school teachers’ dialogic assessment sessions with individual students to investigate how these teachers both assessed and taught literary reading moves as they observed and supported the students’ writing. An expanded version of Rainey’s (2017) scheme for coding literary reading practices was used.\n\n\nFindings\nThe three teachers varied in the range and extent of literary reading practices they taught and supported. The practices that they most commonly modeled or otherwise supported were making claims, seeking patterns and articulating puzzles. The variation we observed in their literary reading practices may be attributed to institutional characteristics of the teachers’ contexts.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThis study illustrates how the concept of prolepsis can be productively used as a lens through which to understand teachers’ instructional choices.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThe descriptive findings show how individualized coaching of students’ writing about literature can also support literary reading. Teachers of English need not worry that they have to choose between teaching writing and teaching reading.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis study presents dialogic assessment as a useful way to guide students through the writing process and literary interpretation simultaneously.\n","PeriodicalId":45885,"journal":{"name":"English Teaching-Practice and Critique","volume":"86 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"English Teaching-Practice and Critique","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/etpc-12-2019-0167","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to explore and provide empirical evidence for ways that teachers can simultaneously support students’ literary reading and analytic writing through dialogic assessment, an approach to conferencing with writers that foregrounds process and integrates assessment and instruction. Design/methodology/approach This study uses qualitative research methods of three high school teachers’ dialogic assessment sessions with individual students to investigate how these teachers both assessed and taught literary reading moves as they observed and supported the students’ writing. An expanded version of Rainey’s (2017) scheme for coding literary reading practices was used. Findings The three teachers varied in the range and extent of literary reading practices they taught and supported. The practices that they most commonly modeled or otherwise supported were making claims, seeking patterns and articulating puzzles. The variation we observed in their literary reading practices may be attributed to institutional characteristics of the teachers’ contexts. Research limitations/implications This study illustrates how the concept of prolepsis can be productively used as a lens through which to understand teachers’ instructional choices. Practical implications The descriptive findings show how individualized coaching of students’ writing about literature can also support literary reading. Teachers of English need not worry that they have to choose between teaching writing and teaching reading. Originality/value This study presents dialogic assessment as a useful way to guide students through the writing process and literary interpretation simultaneously.
重要的动作:对话写作评估和文学阅读
目的本研究旨在探讨教师如何通过对话式评估同时支持学生的文学阅读和分析性写作,并提供经验证据。对话式评估是一种与作家会面的方式,它突出了过程,将评估和教学结合起来。设计/方法/方法本研究采用定性研究方法,对三位高中教师与个别学生的对话评估课程进行研究,以调查这些教师在观察和支持学生写作时是如何评估和教授文学阅读动作的。使用了Rainey(2017)的文学阅读实践编码方案的扩展版本。这三位老师所教授和支持的文学阅读练习的范围和程度各不相同。他们最常建模或支持的实践是提出主张、寻找模式和阐明难题。我们在文学阅读实践中观察到的差异可能归因于教师语境的制度特征。研究局限/启示本研究说明了如何将预言概念作为理解教师教学选择的有效视角。实际意义描述性研究结果表明,对学生的文学写作进行个性化指导也可以支持文学阅读。英语教师不必担心他们必须在教写作和教阅读之间做出选择。原创性/价值本研究将对话评估作为指导学生同时完成写作过程和文学解释的有效方法。
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
1.40
自引率
11.10%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: English Teaching: Practice and Critique seeks to promote research and theory related to English literacy that is grounded in a range of contexts: classrooms, schools and wider educational constituencies. The journal has as its main focus English teaching in L1 settings. Submissions focused on EFL will be considered only if they have clear pertinence to English literacy in L1 settings. It provides a place where authors from a range of backgrounds can identify matters of common concern and thereby foster broad professional communities and networks. Where possible, English Teaching: Practice and Critique encourages comparative approaches to topics and issues. The journal published three types of manuscripts: research articles, essays (theoretical papers, reviews, and responses), and teacher narratives. Often special issues of the journal focus on distinct topics; however, unthemed manuscript submissions are always welcome and published in most issues.
×
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