修辞阅读与高中课程学科素养的发展。

James E. Warren
{"title":"修辞阅读与高中课程学科素养的发展。","authors":"James E. Warren","doi":"10.37514/ATD-J.2013.10.1.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Education researchers and literacy specialists have responded to declining reading scores among high school students by calling on teachers across subject areas to teach \"disciplinary literacy,\" which introduces students to the ways discipline-specific knowledge is produced and communicated and teaches students to apply different reading strategies depending on the discipline from which a text originates. Disciplinary literacy programs have the potential to raise reading achievement among high school students, but they put English Language Arts (ELA) teachers in a paradoxical position: on the one hand, ELA teachers are discouraged from teaching general reading strategies that fail to account for discipline-specific text features, but on the other hand, ELA teachers are discouraged from teaching the discourse conventions of math, science, history, and social studies because they lack the specialized knowledge of teachers in those subjects. This paper proposes that \"rhetorical reading,\" a construct that sparked a flurry of CAC studies some twenty years ago but that never influenced high school instruction, could be the solution to this impasse. Rhetorical reading is a strategy common to all academic disciplines but by its very nature demands discipline-specific adaptations when applied to specific subject areas. Those of us who help train future English Language Arts (ELA) teachers are often frustrated by the isolation of English instruction in high schools. Generally considered a discrete subject area, ELA has rarely influenced literacy practices in other subject areas such as math, science, or social studies. This situation may be changing with the emergence of \"disciplinary literacy,\" a term coined recently by education researchers and literacy specialists (e.g., Lee & Spratley, 2010; Moje, 2008; NCTE, 2011; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008) to describe programs that introduce students to the ways disciplinespecific knowledge is produced and communicated and teach students to apply different reading strategies depending on the academic discipline from which a text originates. Disciplinary literacy programs have taken off in recent years, and their influence can even be found in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which not only require literacy instruction across content areas but also recommend that this instruction account for the discipline-specific nature of academic texts. For example, the math standards ask students to \"construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others\" (2010b, p. 6), whereas the science standards expect students to \"analyze the author's purpose in providing an explanation, describing a procedure, or discussing an experiment in a text\" (2010a, p. 62). The history/social studies standards call for students to \"evaluate authors' differing points of view on the same historical event or issue by assessing the authors' claims, reasoning, and","PeriodicalId":201634,"journal":{"name":"Across the Disciplines","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rhetorical Reading and the Development of Disciplinary Literacy across the High School Curriculum.\",\"authors\":\"James E. Warren\",\"doi\":\"10.37514/ATD-J.2013.10.1.01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Education researchers and literacy specialists have responded to declining reading scores among high school students by calling on teachers across subject areas to teach \\\"disciplinary literacy,\\\" which introduces students to the ways discipline-specific knowledge is produced and communicated and teaches students to apply different reading strategies depending on the discipline from which a text originates. Disciplinary literacy programs have the potential to raise reading achievement among high school students, but they put English Language Arts (ELA) teachers in a paradoxical position: on the one hand, ELA teachers are discouraged from teaching general reading strategies that fail to account for discipline-specific text features, but on the other hand, ELA teachers are discouraged from teaching the discourse conventions of math, science, history, and social studies because they lack the specialized knowledge of teachers in those subjects. This paper proposes that \\\"rhetorical reading,\\\" a construct that sparked a flurry of CAC studies some twenty years ago but that never influenced high school instruction, could be the solution to this impasse. Rhetorical reading is a strategy common to all academic disciplines but by its very nature demands discipline-specific adaptations when applied to specific subject areas. Those of us who help train future English Language Arts (ELA) teachers are often frustrated by the isolation of English instruction in high schools. Generally considered a discrete subject area, ELA has rarely influenced literacy practices in other subject areas such as math, science, or social studies. This situation may be changing with the emergence of \\\"disciplinary literacy,\\\" a term coined recently by education researchers and literacy specialists (e.g., Lee & Spratley, 2010; Moje, 2008; NCTE, 2011; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008) to describe programs that introduce students to the ways disciplinespecific knowledge is produced and communicated and teach students to apply different reading strategies depending on the academic discipline from which a text originates. Disciplinary literacy programs have taken off in recent years, and their influence can even be found in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which not only require literacy instruction across content areas but also recommend that this instruction account for the discipline-specific nature of academic texts. For example, the math standards ask students to \\\"construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others\\\" (2010b, p. 6), whereas the science standards expect students to \\\"analyze the author's purpose in providing an explanation, describing a procedure, or discussing an experiment in a text\\\" (2010a, p. 62). The history/social studies standards call for students to \\\"evaluate authors' differing points of view on the same historical event or issue by assessing the authors' claims, reasoning, and\",\"PeriodicalId\":201634,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Across the Disciplines\",\"volume\":\"74 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Across the Disciplines\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37514/ATD-J.2013.10.1.01\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Across the Disciplines","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37514/ATD-J.2013.10.1.01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

针对高中学生阅读成绩下降的问题,教育研究人员和扫盲专家呼吁各学科领域的教师教授“学科扫盲”,向学生介绍特定学科知识的产生和交流方式,并教学生根据文本来源的学科应用不同的阅读策略。学科扫盲计划有可能提高高中学生的阅读成绩,但他们把英语语言艺术(ELA)教师置于一个矛盾的位置:一方面,ELA教师不鼓励教授没有考虑学科特定文本特征的一般阅读策略,但另一方面,ELA教师不鼓励教授数学、科学、历史和社会研究的话语惯例,因为他们缺乏教师在这些学科的专业知识。本文提出,“修辞阅读”可能是解决这一僵局的办法,这个概念在大约20年前引发了一系列CAC研究,但从未影响到高中教学。修辞阅读是所有学科共同的一种策略,但就其本质而言,在应用于特定学科领域时需要对学科进行特定的调整。我们这些帮助培养未来英语语言艺术(ELA)教师的人经常因为高中英语教学的孤立而感到沮丧。ELA通常被认为是一个独立的学科领域,很少影响其他学科领域的读写实践,如数学、科学或社会研究。这种情况可能会随着“学科素养”的出现而改变,“学科素养”是教育研究人员和扫盲专家最近创造的一个术语(例如,Lee & Spratley, 2010;莫杰,2008;性别,2011;Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008)来描述向学生介绍特定学科知识产生和传播方式的课程,并教学生根据文本来源的学科应用不同的阅读策略。近年来,学科扫盲计划已经起飞,其影响甚至可以在共同核心州标准(CCSS)中找到,该标准不仅要求跨内容领域的扫盲教学,还建议这种教学说明学术文本的学科特殊性。例如,数学标准要求学生“构建可行的论点并批判他人的推理”(2010b,第6页),而科学标准则要求学生“分析作者在提供解释、描述过程或讨论文本中的实验时的目的”(2010a,第62页)。历史/社会研究标准要求学生“通过评估作者的主张、推理和观点来评估作者对同一历史事件或问题的不同观点”
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rhetorical Reading and the Development of Disciplinary Literacy across the High School Curriculum.
Education researchers and literacy specialists have responded to declining reading scores among high school students by calling on teachers across subject areas to teach "disciplinary literacy," which introduces students to the ways discipline-specific knowledge is produced and communicated and teaches students to apply different reading strategies depending on the discipline from which a text originates. Disciplinary literacy programs have the potential to raise reading achievement among high school students, but they put English Language Arts (ELA) teachers in a paradoxical position: on the one hand, ELA teachers are discouraged from teaching general reading strategies that fail to account for discipline-specific text features, but on the other hand, ELA teachers are discouraged from teaching the discourse conventions of math, science, history, and social studies because they lack the specialized knowledge of teachers in those subjects. This paper proposes that "rhetorical reading," a construct that sparked a flurry of CAC studies some twenty years ago but that never influenced high school instruction, could be the solution to this impasse. Rhetorical reading is a strategy common to all academic disciplines but by its very nature demands discipline-specific adaptations when applied to specific subject areas. Those of us who help train future English Language Arts (ELA) teachers are often frustrated by the isolation of English instruction in high schools. Generally considered a discrete subject area, ELA has rarely influenced literacy practices in other subject areas such as math, science, or social studies. This situation may be changing with the emergence of "disciplinary literacy," a term coined recently by education researchers and literacy specialists (e.g., Lee & Spratley, 2010; Moje, 2008; NCTE, 2011; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008) to describe programs that introduce students to the ways disciplinespecific knowledge is produced and communicated and teach students to apply different reading strategies depending on the academic discipline from which a text originates. Disciplinary literacy programs have taken off in recent years, and their influence can even be found in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which not only require literacy instruction across content areas but also recommend that this instruction account for the discipline-specific nature of academic texts. For example, the math standards ask students to "construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others" (2010b, p. 6), whereas the science standards expect students to "analyze the author's purpose in providing an explanation, describing a procedure, or discussing an experiment in a text" (2010a, p. 62). The history/social studies standards call for students to "evaluate authors' differing points of view on the same historical event or issue by assessing the authors' claims, reasoning, and
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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