No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Although content reading courses are mandated in a majority of states for preservice secondary teachers in a variety of teaching endorsement areas, these prospective teachers often resist such courses, viewing them as irrelevant to their future success as teachers. In order to better understand this resistance, dimensions of preservice teachers' resistance to content reading instruction were examined through a discussion of a qualitative analysis of five data sources. The overall analysis indicated that preservice teachers hold misconceptions about content reading common among their practicing peers; such surface misconceptions are easy to counter. However, in addition, we found a dimension of the resistance deeply rooted in beliefs and traditions of school life relating to teachers' roles and allegiance to content disciplines; these complex misconceptions are more resilient. Suggestions are offered for modifying preservice content reading courses so that preservice teachers can confront the deeply rooted beliefs and traditions that run counter to the tenets and pedagogy associated with content reading courses.Comparing content reading with my other required content courses is like comparing burnt toast with water. Water, like my other required courses, can be used in a number of different ways. Content reading, like burnt toast, can't be used for anything. It just gets thrown out.

Schmoker called into question the effectiveness of many of the major reform efforts of the past two decades. In particular he made the case that strategic planning efforts and whole-school reform efforts have been mostly ineffective because planning cycles are too long and implementation is too complex and cumbersome, leading to "fragmentation and overload." To solve these problems and to make schools work better for students, he recommended that small groups of teachers work collaboratively on relatively short-term goals. He wrote, "We must replace complex, long-term plans with simple plans that focus on actual teaching lessons and units created in true 'learning communities' that promote team-based, short-term thought and action." 1 As we read Schmoker's article, we nodded our heads in agreement; we had experienced exactly what he described and had arrived at similar conclusions. Over

No abstract

The purpose of this cross‐case analysis is to illustrate how and why literacy was incorporated into science teaching and learning in three secondary classrooms. Research questions guiding the analysis include: (a) How were literacy events shaped by the teachers' philosophies about teaching science content and teaching students? and (b) How was literacy (reading, writing, and oral language) structured by the teachers and manifested in science lessons? The methodology of ethnography and the theoretical framework of symbolic interactionism were employed in the three studies on which the cross‐case analysis was based. The researchers assumed the role of participant observers, collecting data over the period of 1 year in each of the three classrooms. Data, in the form of fieldnotes, interviews, and artifacts, were collected. In each study, data were analyzed using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to determine patterns in the teachers' beliefs about learning and how these influenced their choice of literacy activities. The cross‐case analysis was conducted to determine patterns across the three teachers and their classrooms. The findings from this analysis are used to compare how the teachers' philosophies of teaching science and their beliefs about how students learn influenced their use of literacy practices during lessons. Specifically, each teacher's use of literacy activities varied based on his or her beliefs about teaching science concepts. Furthermore, reading, writing, and oral language were important vehicles to learning science concepts within daily classroom activities in the three classrooms.

No abstract