生成,编织和策展:阅读文学文本的学科过程

IF 0.8 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Todd Reynolds, Leslie S. Rush, J. P. Holschuh, Jodi P. Lampi
{"title":"生成,编织和策展:阅读文学文本的学科过程","authors":"Todd Reynolds, Leslie S. Rush, J. P. Holschuh, Jodi P. Lampi","doi":"10.1108/etpc-06-2021-0070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purposes of this study is to expand on previous work in English language arts (ELA) disciplinary literacy and to unpack literary text reading processes across three different participant groups.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe authors recruited literary scholars and first-year college students to read literary texts aloud and voice their thoughts. Transcripts were collaboratively coded and analyzed using a priori and emergent coding.\n\n\nFindings\nThis study presents the findings in two ways. First, this study grouped the codes into four categories, namely, background knowledge, comprehension, disciplinary knowledge and building an interpretation. This described the differences in frequencies among the participants’ strategy use. Next, to more fully describe how participants read literary texts, this study presents the data using three processes, namely, generating, weaving and curating. These findings indicate a continuum of strategies and processes used by participants.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThe study suggests using the ELA heuristic for instruction, which includes moving students beyond generating and weaving by asking them to do their own interpretive work of curation. This potential roadmap for instruction avoids a deficit mindset for students by recommending low-stakes opportunities that meet students where they are as they build their capacity for interpretive moves.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThe findings help the field to gain an understanding of what novices and experts do when they read literary text, including both strategies and processes. This study also provide an ELA heuristic that has instructional implications. This study adds to the body of knowledge for disciplinary literacy in ELA in both theoretical and practical ways.\n","PeriodicalId":45885,"journal":{"name":"English Teaching-Practice and Critique","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Generating, weaving and curating: disciplinary processes for reading literary text\",\"authors\":\"Todd Reynolds, Leslie S. Rush, J. P. Holschuh, Jodi P. Lampi\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/etpc-06-2021-0070\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThe purposes of this study is to expand on previous work in English language arts (ELA) disciplinary literacy and to unpack literary text reading processes across three different participant groups.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThe authors recruited literary scholars and first-year college students to read literary texts aloud and voice their thoughts. Transcripts were collaboratively coded and analyzed using a priori and emergent coding.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThis study presents the findings in two ways. First, this study grouped the codes into four categories, namely, background knowledge, comprehension, disciplinary knowledge and building an interpretation. This described the differences in frequencies among the participants’ strategy use. Next, to more fully describe how participants read literary texts, this study presents the data using three processes, namely, generating, weaving and curating. These findings indicate a continuum of strategies and processes used by participants.\\n\\n\\nPractical implications\\nThe study suggests using the ELA heuristic for instruction, which includes moving students beyond generating and weaving by asking them to do their own interpretive work of curation. This potential roadmap for instruction avoids a deficit mindset for students by recommending low-stakes opportunities that meet students where they are as they build their capacity for interpretive moves.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThe findings help the field to gain an understanding of what novices and experts do when they read literary text, including both strategies and processes. This study also provide an ELA heuristic that has instructional implications. This study adds to the body of knowledge for disciplinary literacy in ELA in both theoretical and practical ways.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":45885,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"English Teaching-Practice and Critique\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"English Teaching-Practice and Critique\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/etpc-06-2021-0070\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"English Teaching-Practice and Critique","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/etpc-06-2021-0070","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: 2

摘要

本研究的目的是在先前关于英语语言艺术(ELA)学科素养的研究基础上进行扩展,并揭示三个不同参与者群体的文学文本阅读过程。设计/方法/方法作者招募了文学学者和大学一年级的学生,让他们大声朗读文学文本并表达自己的想法。使用先验和紧急编码协作编码和分析转录本。研究结果这项研究以两种方式展示了研究结果。首先,本研究将规范分为四类,即背景知识、理解知识、学科知识和构建解释。这描述了参与者使用策略频率的差异。接下来,为了更全面地描述参与者如何阅读文学文本,本研究使用三个过程来呈现数据,即生成,编织和策展。这些发现表明参与者使用的策略和过程是连续的。实际意义研究建议使用ELA启发式进行教学,包括通过要求学生自己做策展的解释性工作来引导学生超越生成和编织。这个潜在的教学路线图通过推荐低风险的机会来满足学生在他们建立解释动作能力时的需求,从而避免了学生的赤字心态。原创性/价值这些发现有助于该领域了解新手和专家在阅读文学文本时的做法,包括策略和过程。本研究也提供了一个具有教学意义的ELA启发式。本研究在理论和实践两方面增加了ELA学科素养的知识体系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Generating, weaving and curating: disciplinary processes for reading literary text
Purpose The purposes of this study is to expand on previous work in English language arts (ELA) disciplinary literacy and to unpack literary text reading processes across three different participant groups. Design/methodology/approach The authors recruited literary scholars and first-year college students to read literary texts aloud and voice their thoughts. Transcripts were collaboratively coded and analyzed using a priori and emergent coding. Findings This study presents the findings in two ways. First, this study grouped the codes into four categories, namely, background knowledge, comprehension, disciplinary knowledge and building an interpretation. This described the differences in frequencies among the participants’ strategy use. Next, to more fully describe how participants read literary texts, this study presents the data using three processes, namely, generating, weaving and curating. These findings indicate a continuum of strategies and processes used by participants. Practical implications The study suggests using the ELA heuristic for instruction, which includes moving students beyond generating and weaving by asking them to do their own interpretive work of curation. This potential roadmap for instruction avoids a deficit mindset for students by recommending low-stakes opportunities that meet students where they are as they build their capacity for interpretive moves. Originality/value The findings help the field to gain an understanding of what novices and experts do when they read literary text, including both strategies and processes. This study also provide an ELA heuristic that has instructional implications. This study adds to the body of knowledge for disciplinary literacy in ELA in both theoretical and practical ways.
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
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