什么是ELA文本集?调查和整合认知,批判和学科的镜头

IF 0.8 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
D. Reynolds
{"title":"什么是ELA文本集?调查和整合认知,批判和学科的镜头","authors":"D. Reynolds","doi":"10.1108/etpc-06-2021-0075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nResearchers and teachers have noted the power of students reading text sets or multiple texts on the same topic, and numerous articles have been published with examples of and frameworks for text set construction. This study aims to traces the theoretical assumptions of these frameworks and explores their distinct implications and tensions for understanding disciplinary literacy in English language arts (ELA).\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe author draws on three frameworks, using a focal article for each: cognitive (Lupo et al., 2018), critical (Lechtenberg, 2018) and disciplinary (Levine et al., 2018), and connect those articles to other research studies in that tradition. Separately, the author describes each of the three text set frameworks’ design principles. Then, across frameworks, the author analyze the disciplinary assumptions around each framework’s centering texts, epistemological goals and trajectories.\n\n\nFindings\nThe centering text, goals and trajectories of each framework reflect its underlying epistemological lens. All frameworks include a text that serves as its epistemological center and the cognitive and disciplinary frameworks, both rely on progressions of complexity (knowledge/linguistic and literary, respectively). The author traces additional alignments and tensions between the frameworks and offer suggestions for possible hybridities in reading modality and reading volume.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nMany articles have been written about models of text set construction, but few have compared the assumptions behind those models. Examining these assumptions may help English teachers and curriculum designers select texts and build curriculum that leverages the strengths of each model and informs researchers’ understanding of disciplinary literacy in ELA.\n","PeriodicalId":45885,"journal":{"name":"English Teaching-Practice and Critique","volume":"122 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What is an ELA text set? Surveying and integrating cognitive, critical and disciplinary lenses\",\"authors\":\"D. Reynolds\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/etpc-06-2021-0075\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nResearchers and teachers have noted the power of students reading text sets or multiple texts on the same topic, and numerous articles have been published with examples of and frameworks for text set construction. This study aims to traces the theoretical assumptions of these frameworks and explores their distinct implications and tensions for understanding disciplinary literacy in English language arts (ELA).\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThe author draws on three frameworks, using a focal article for each: cognitive (Lupo et al., 2018), critical (Lechtenberg, 2018) and disciplinary (Levine et al., 2018), and connect those articles to other research studies in that tradition. Separately, the author describes each of the three text set frameworks’ design principles. Then, across frameworks, the author analyze the disciplinary assumptions around each framework’s centering texts, epistemological goals and trajectories.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe centering text, goals and trajectories of each framework reflect its underlying epistemological lens. All frameworks include a text that serves as its epistemological center and the cognitive and disciplinary frameworks, both rely on progressions of complexity (knowledge/linguistic and literary, respectively). The author traces additional alignments and tensions between the frameworks and offer suggestions for possible hybridities in reading modality and reading volume.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nMany articles have been written about models of text set construction, but few have compared the assumptions behind those models. Examining these assumptions may help English teachers and curriculum designers select texts and build curriculum that leverages the strengths of each model and informs researchers’ understanding of disciplinary literacy in ELA.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":45885,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"English Teaching-Practice and Critique\",\"volume\":\"122 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"English Teaching-Practice and Critique\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/etpc-06-2021-0075\",\"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-06-2021-0075","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: 0

摘要

研究人员和教师已经注意到学生阅读同一主题的文本集或多个文本的力量,并且已经发表了许多关于文本集构建的示例和框架的文章。本研究旨在追溯这些框架的理论假设,并探讨它们对理解英语语言艺术(ELA)学科素养的独特影响和紧张关系。设计/方法/方法作者借鉴了三个框架,每个框架都有一篇重点文章:认知(Lupo等人,2018)、关键(Lechtenberg, 2018)和学科(Levine等人,2018),并将这些文章与该传统的其他研究联系起来。作者分别描述了这三种文本集框架的设计原则。然后,作者跨框架分析了围绕每个框架的中心文本、认识论目标和轨迹的学科假设。每个框架的中心文本、目标和轨迹反映了其潜在的认识论视角。所有框架都包括作为其认识论中心的文本以及认知和学科框架,两者都依赖于复杂性的进展(分别为知识/语言和文学)。作者追溯了框架之间的额外对齐和紧张关系,并为阅读方式和阅读量的可能杂交提供了建议。许多文章都是关于文本集构建模型的,但很少有人比较这些模型背后的假设。检查这些假设可以帮助英语教师和课程设计师选择文本和构建课程,利用每个模型的优势,并告知研究人员对ELA学科素养的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What is an ELA text set? Surveying and integrating cognitive, critical and disciplinary lenses
Purpose Researchers and teachers have noted the power of students reading text sets or multiple texts on the same topic, and numerous articles have been published with examples of and frameworks for text set construction. This study aims to traces the theoretical assumptions of these frameworks and explores their distinct implications and tensions for understanding disciplinary literacy in English language arts (ELA). Design/methodology/approach The author draws on three frameworks, using a focal article for each: cognitive (Lupo et al., 2018), critical (Lechtenberg, 2018) and disciplinary (Levine et al., 2018), and connect those articles to other research studies in that tradition. Separately, the author describes each of the three text set frameworks’ design principles. Then, across frameworks, the author analyze the disciplinary assumptions around each framework’s centering texts, epistemological goals and trajectories. Findings The centering text, goals and trajectories of each framework reflect its underlying epistemological lens. All frameworks include a text that serves as its epistemological center and the cognitive and disciplinary frameworks, both rely on progressions of complexity (knowledge/linguistic and literary, respectively). The author traces additional alignments and tensions between the frameworks and offer suggestions for possible hybridities in reading modality and reading volume. Originality/value Many articles have been written about models of text set construction, but few have compared the assumptions behind those models. Examining these assumptions may help English teachers and curriculum designers select texts and build curriculum that leverages the strengths of each model and informs researchers’ understanding of disciplinary literacy in ELA.
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