Taking Away the Struggle to Read in the Middle Grades

Broaddus, Karen; Ivey, Gay

doi:10.1080/00940771.2002.11495347

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If the routines of textual engagement are to be adapted, they will have to be clearly guided by instruction, especially as this investigation underscored how students actively avoid disruptions in routine. Broaddus and Ivey (2002) relate that students are trained to see school reading as reading for task completion, and this chimes with Andrew’s view that the way his teachers normally present texts is in the interest of nurturing authorized school activity:…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Reading digital texts: obstacles to using digital resources

Kesson

2020

ETPC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Digital texts are increasingly widespread and research is needed on how students use digital texts, particularly in school-based classwork. The purpose of this study is to challenges persistent myths about young people’s affinity with digital tools by investigating the factors that condition or limit the ways students interact with and respond to digital web-based texts. Design/methodology/approach Two 12th grade English classes, 21 students in all, produced written responses to a digital text. Following a preliminary analysis of student writing, 7 students, representing diverse reading backgrounds, were interviewed. Content units were used as a unit of analysis for both interviews and written data. Following open coding, 14 initial codes were condensed into 3 categories, namely, routines, tools and beliefs. Findings This study suggests that for students to see digital textual resources as significant, they must be guided to engage with these features. Classroom routines, the tools used in teaching and learning reading and the beliefs students hold about their school-based reading can restrict student uptake of digital features of texts. Instruction must be adapted to include teaching on digital texts. Originality/value Students interact with digital texts daily, yet explicit teaching on reading digital texts presents particular demands. This study contributes to understanding the challenges faced by students and teachers when they grapple with texts in different forms.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Reading digital texts: obstacles to using digital resources

Kesson

2020

ETPC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Articles positioned literacy as "everybody's job, all day long" (Taylor, 2004, p. 28) and in order to raise literacy achievement, especially for struggling students, instruction was advised to be strategic, individualized, and personalized (Broaddus & Ivey, 2002;Taylor, 2004) with ample time provided for students to read self-selected books during the school day (Roe, 2004). Literacy should be taught as a process (Broaddus & Ivey, 2002;Kist, 2003) and infused across disciplines (Fisher, Frey, Fearn, Farnan, & Petersen, 2004;Taylor, 2004). Indeed, this holistic view of literacy was echoed in the movement's approach to integrated curriculum in the face of standards-based, high-stakes testing.…”

Section: -2009: Research-based Models Of Middle School Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

An Historical Overview of the Middle School Movement, 1963–2015

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over 50 years of articles related to the middle school movement in the United States were examined and analyzed in order to uncover the movement's primary themes associated with practice, research, and policy. Using a qualitative content approach, researchers created themes to represent the movement decade by decade. The years 1963-1979 were identified as the beginning of the Middle School Movement and its search for an identity. The next decade, 1980-1989, was a time of advancement and progress, and the movement became identified with practices, such as team teaching, interdisciplinary curriculum, and advisory. The years 1990-1999 saw pressure on the movement advancing from national policies, but the movement persisted with a sense of hope. To combat challenges to the middle school movement's core beliefs and practices, an era of research on middle school practices emerged, and this research focus characterized 2000-2009. The current decade continued the research focus with an international perspective and efforts to identify and describe a "signature" middle school pedagogy. From this historical perspective, it was determined that core middle school practices must continue to grow and thrive in order to meet the social and academic needs of future generations of young adolescents.

show abstract

“…Learning of content can occur, but does not in middle school classrooms where ‘one size fits all’ instruction is used and the pace of curriculum coverage is swift and non‐responsive to students’ learning. Such growth does occur in secondary school classrooms where differentiation occurs (Broaddus and Ivey, 2002; Kilgore, Griffin, Sindelar and Webb, 2002). Educators must feel empowered to acknowledge and respond to students who are beginning at different levels and so will grow to different levels, if they are provided sufficient and appropriate instruction.…”

Section: Fallacy 2: Teachers Are Required To Cover the Curriculum Rementioning

confidence: 99%

Facts and fallacies: differentiation and the general education curriculum for students with special educational needs

King‐Sears

2008

Support for Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As policy makers and educators respond to legislation promoting the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms, there is sometimes confusion about why this is being done and how it can be accomplished effectively. In this article, two categories of fallacies, or misunderstandings, are identified. The first fallacy is that students with disabilities are incapable of learning the general education curriculum. The second fallacy is that teachers are required to ‘cover’ the entire curriculum, sometimes at a pace that leaves students with and without disabilities behind. Facts are presented following each fallacy. These facts describe research‐based pedagogies effective for students with and without disabilities, indicating that students with mild disabilities can learn the general education curriculum when responsive pedagogies are used. These facts also describe how schools that promote differentiation can potentially achieve higher scores on large‐scale assessments than schools that promote ‘one size fits all’ instruction.

show abstract

Taking Away the Struggle to Read in the Middle Grades

Cited by 11 publications

References 7 publications

Reading digital texts: obstacles to using digital resources

Reading digital texts: obstacles to using digital resources

An Historical Overview of the Middle School Movement, 1963–2015

Facts and fallacies: differentiation and the general education curriculum for students with special educational needs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About