Prescribing Literacy Teaching for all School Subjects. How cross-curricular professional development in literacy addresses the objectives of specific school subjects
Author(s):
Nils Kirsten (presenting / submitting)
Conference:
ECER 2017
Network:
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Format:
Paper

Session Information

27 SES 10 B, Literacy, Cross-disciplinary and Subject Focus in Resources and Classroom Practices

Paper Session

Time:
2017-08-24
15:30-17:00
Room:
K3.05
Chair:
Florence Ligozat

Contribution

Improving the literacy practices used in different school subjects is a common target for teachers’ continuing professional development (CPD). Interventions in this area have over time been enacted under different headlines, from the popular slogan “every teacher is a teacher of reading” to concepts such as “content area reading” and “disciplinary literacy” (Brozo, Moorman, Meyer, & Stewart, 2013).

 

In this study, a CPD initiative in this tradition is investigated: the nationally distributed Swedish initiative “the Literacy Boost” (in Swedish“Läslyftet”), which targets K-12-teachers in all school subjects and is conducted 2014-2018. In this initiative about 20 000 teachers have participated up to the academic year 2016-17, which amounts to about 15% of the teachers in primary and secondary school in Sweden (Carlbaum, Andersson, Hanberger, & Lundström, 2015; Skolverket, 2015, 2016).

 

An important component in this CPD initiative is prescribed literacy teaching activities which participating teachers are to implement every two weeks and subsequently report on during CPD meetings. The realisation of these activities in different school subjects is investigated in this study.

 

Earlier research has shown that subject matter specialization has a profound effect on literacy teaching practices in secondary school. Creese (2005) claims that subject teachers lack knowledge of how language functions to convey meaning in their subjects and also regard such knowledge as less important than the curricular objectives of the subject. Alvermann & Moore (1996) state that those literacy practices that research proposes as effective have been proven especially hard to implement in secondary school classrooms, where lower-order reading activities such as facts reproduction dominate. Reports from the Swedish Schools Inspectorate (Skolinspektionen, 2010, 2012a, 2012b) indicate that teachers in Swedish schools to a small degree help pupils to process and interpret the texts used in the classroom, regardless if the subject taught is Swedish or Natural Science.

 

However, one good reason for subject teachers not to implement literacy teaching ideas such those advocated by Alvermann & Moore is that teaching specific educational content is such a complex and demanding task that general principles offer little help for instructional improvement. This assertion is underlined by research proposing that CPD should deal with the teaching of specific content if effects on student learning is to occur (Cordingley, Bell, Rundell, Evans, & Curtis, 2003; Kennedy, 1998; Timperley, Wilson, Barrar, & Fung, 2007). Studies of literacy CPD for content area teachers have also shown that teachers often have had difficulties in identifying what content specific literacy that characterize their subjects (Cantrell, Burns, & Callaway, 2008). Thus, initiatives to change teaching that do not take the challenges of subject teaching into account may run into problems in their endeavors. Consequently, as Alvermann & Moore (1996) suggest, it is important to increase the knowledge about the process of realization of literacy teaching in different school subjects, an area that this study aspires to contribute to.  

 

The study investigates the realization of the CPD initiative in six schools with the aim to analyze how prescribed teaching activities in literacy CPD are enacted in teachers’ subject teaching and how the CPD meetings contribute to this outcome. This is explored by the following empirical research questions:

 

  1. Which teaching objectives do teachers express in their accounts of their enactment of prescribed teaching activities?
  2. Which approaches to literacy instruction in different school subjects do these teaching objectives represent?
  3. Which approaches to literacy instruction in different school subjects are in focus of comments from the CPD coach and other participants? 

Method

The CPD initiative was studied by observation of its realization in six schools distributed over three different municipalities. The selection of schools was done with the aim to achieve as large variation between schools as possible. Thus, geographic location (urban, suburban, rural), school results, pupil composition and grades taught vary between the schools. In each school four CPD meetings were observed, out of the 32 CPD meetings held at each school during the year. The total number of observed meetings amounted to 23 (one meeting was cancelled by a school). The number of participating teachers at each school varied between 6 and 13. In all groups teachers teaching different subjects were represented. In addition interviews were conducted with CPD coaches at all six schools and with eight of the participating teachers. The study investigates the teaching objectives for enacted literacy activities that teachers express. For this end evaluative statements in teachers’ speech are used. Evaluative statements provide a means for identifying objectives and norms since evaluations by necessity, as Thompson & Hunston (2000) state, ”reflect the value system of that person and their community” (p. 6). In this study two specific SFL-tools are used for identifying evaluations. Firstly, evaluative statements that position the speaker as positive or negative to something are identified using the Martin & White (2005) framework “attitude”, which includes statements of judgment, affect and appreciation. Secondly, general values of desirability are identified by mapping obligational modalities, such as should and must (Fairclough, 2003, s. 173). In a second step of the analysis the identified teaching objectives are classified in regard to what approaches to literacy instruction in different school subjects that they represent. For this end a framework that distinguishes between objectives concerning the school subject as such, school language in general and subject specific language is used. This framework is based on Creese’ (2005) distinction between the referential and meta-linguistic functions of language (the school subject as such and the language used, respectively). The framework also draws on the distinction between literacy instruction that takes it starting point in the language of specific subjects (disciplinary literacy) and literacy instruction that views literacy as general skills that can be applied in different subjects (content area literacy) (Brozo m.fl., 2013; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012).

Expected Outcomes

Preliminary results show that all teacher accounts of conducted activities included teaching objectives related to school language in general, such as improving the pupils’ use of reading strategies and their ability to conduct dialogue about texts. However, less than half of the teacher accounts included teaching objectives related to the specific school subjects taught. Thus, the teachers seem to have made an effort to enact the prescribed literacy activities, but did often not manage to integrate them into their ordinary subject teaching. Although the CPD coaches express that the activities should preferably be enacted within the frame of subject teaching, that teachers enact the activities appear as more important than that the activities contribute to the ordinary subject teaching. The coaches express that it is desirable that the activities somehow relate to the subject taught, but that it is not necessary that the curricular goals of the subject are addressed. One reason for this lack of attention to subject specific objectives may be that the CPD coaches as well as the CPD material did not specifically address subject specific language related to the different subjects represented in the teacher groups. As the teachers in the studied groups represented several different school subjects the discussion often remained on school language in general rather than going into the specifics of different subjects. In summary the results of this study indicate that it is not enough to address literacy teaching in general and leave it up to individual teachers to translate it into their subjects if literacy teaching strategies are to be integrated into the teaching of subject specific objectives.

References

Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W. (1996). Secondary school reading. I R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Red.), Handbook of reading research. Vol. 2 (s. 951–983). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brozo, W. G., Moorman, G., Meyer, C., & Stewart, T. (2013). Content Area Reading and Disciplinary Literacy: A Case for The Radical Center. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(5), 353–357. Cantrell, S. C., Burns, L. D., & Callaway, P. (2008). Middle- and High-School Content Area Teachers’ Perceptions about Literacy Teaching and Learning. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(1), 76–94. Carlbaum, S., Andersson, E., Hanberger, A., & Lundström, U. (2015). Utvärdering av Läslyftets utprövningsomgång. Umeå: Umeå Centre for Evaluation Research (UCER). Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Rundell, B., Evans, D., & Curtis, A. (2003). The impact of collaborative continuing professional development (CPD) on classroom teaching and learning. London: EPPI Centre. Creese, A. (2005). Is this content-based language teaching? Linguistics and Education, 16(2), 188–204. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: textual analysis for social research. New York: Routledge. Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Form and Substance in Inservice Teacher Education. Research Monograph. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What Is Disciplinary Literacy and Why Does It Matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7–18. Skolinspektionen. (2010). Läsprocessen i svenska och naturorienterade ämnen, årskurs 4-6. Kvalitetsgranskning Rapport 2010:5. Dnr 40-2009:1774. Stockholm. Skolinspektionen. (2012a). Läsundervisning inom ämnet svenska för årskurs 7–9 (No. 2012:10). Stockholm. Skolinspektionen. (2012b). Svenska i gymnasieskolan (No. 2012:11). Stockholm. Skolverket. (2015, mars 18). Läslyftet får dubbelt så mycket pengar [The reading enhancement recieves twice as much money]. Skolverket. (2016, mars 18). Beslutsbilaga: Antalet handledare och totalbelopp huvudmän rekvirerar för inom Läslyftet 2016/17. Dnr 2015:1265. Thompson, G., & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: An Introduction. I S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Red.), Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse (s. 1–27). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Education.

Author Information

Nils Kirsten (presenting / submitting)
Uppsala University
Uppsala University
Uppsala

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

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, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.