Session Information
27 SES 10 B, Learning in History and Social Sciences
Paper Session
Contribution
The aim of this paper is to explore how different approaches to working with disciplinary reading result in different reading practices, which to various degrees scaffold reading comprehension and development of reading literacy. More specifically, the use of the literacy pedagogy Reading to Learn is compared with more traditional teaching in Sweden.
Reading to learn (R2L) is a literacy pedagogy emphasising reading. The R2L-pedagogy has a functional perspective and integrates the teaching of reading across the curriculum at all levels of school and beyond (Rose & Martin 2012). The pedagogy follows a cyclic model with different steps. The ideological idea is to set up students to succeed in their reading, by preparing them step by step in the reading task. Therefore the teaching cycle moves from guided collective work towards individual performance.
Several programme reports indicate that R2L has a positive effect on students reading performance. However, despite the fact that R2L has been used in several countries for over a decade, relatively few independent scientific studies have been performed where reading practices and students’ reading literacy in R2L classrooms are in focus. Therefore this study focuses on the impact of R2L, as interpreted and implemented by subject teachers, on reading literacy activities and students’ disciplinary reading in two social science classrooms with two different teachers. Of specific interest are the following research questions:
- How can the reading practices be described in terms of overall sequential organisation of reading activities?
- How can text-related discussions within the reading practices be described in term of dialogical potential and students’ text reception?
Results from the analyses will furthermore be discussed with regard to possible effects on students’ reading comprehension.
Theoretically, the study draws on classroom discourse analysis and theories on reading, as found within systemic functional theory and reception theory. Of importance for the discussion is also the concept of dialogicity, used in accordance with Nystrand (1997) building on a Bakhtinian legacy. Within systemic functional theory, language is considered to be a social semiotic system where language both creates and expresses meaning, and enables different choices for expressing meaning (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004). We use the notion of curriculum genre (Christie 2002) which builds on systemic functional theory and refers to teaching sequences as staged, goal oriented processes where each stage or element is said to have a functional significance by organising and shaping meaning. Reception theory describes the meeting between the reader and the text (Langer 1995; Rosenblatt 1982). The concept of text movability which builds on reception theory is used to describe how participants discuss various dimensions of texts. Varied text movability is here seen as positive for students’ reading literacy development (e.g. Liberg et al. 2010). From a dialogical standpoint, dialogue is considered the base for all communication and a prerequisite for active understanding (Bakhtin 1981, p. 282). Dialogically organised instruction involves for example discussion, knowledge emerging from interaction of voices, and recognition of students’ experiences and interpretations as sources of knowledge. Monologically organised instruction is on the other hand signified by for instance recitation, and valuing teacher and textbooks as the only sources of knowledge (Nystrand 1997, p. 19).
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press. Christie, F. (1998) Science and apprenticeship. In: (eds.) J.R. Martin & R.Veel Reading Science. Critical and functional perspectives on discourse of science. London: Routledges. 152-177. Christie, F. (2002) Classroom Discourse Analysis. A functional perspective. London/ New York: Continuum. af Geijerstam, Å. (2006). Att skriva i naturorienterande ämnen i skolan [Diss. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet]. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold. Langer, Judith A. (1995). Envisioning literature: literary understanding and literature instruction. New York: Teachers College Press. Liberg, C., af Geijerstam, Å., & Folkeryd, J. W. (2010). Scientific Literacy and Students' Movability in Science Texts. In (eds.) C. Linder, L. Östman, D. A. Roberts, P.O. Wickman, G. Erickson, and A. MacKinnon Exploring the Landscape of Scientific Literacy, New York/London: Routledge. 74-90. Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. Rose, D., & Martin, J. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney school. Sheffield: Equinox. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1982). The Literary Transaction: Evocation and Response. Theory Into Practice, 21(4), 268–277.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.