Disciplinary Literacy: A Study of the Cognitive, Social, and Semiotic Practices of Disciplinary Experts

Literaturnachweis - Detailanzeige

Trefferliste

Autor/in	Chapman, Suzanne Coatoam
Titel	Disciplinary Literacy: A Study of the Cognitive, Social, and Semiotic Practices of Disciplinary Experts
Quelle	(2015), (347 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
ISBN	978-1-3690-9565-4
Schlagwörter	Hochschulschrift; Dissertation; Semiotics; Literacy; Teaching Methods; Cognitive Processes; Literacy Education; Teacher Education Programs; Content Area Reading; Content Area Writing; Intellectual Disciplines; English; Physics; Engineering; State Universities; Protocol Analysis; Reading Strategies; Notetaking; Prediction; Metacognition; Textbooks; Cooperation; Interdisciplinary Approach; Faculty Publishing; Financial Support; Journal Articles; College Faculty; English Teachers; Science Teachers; Comparative Analysis; Reading Comprehension + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Thesis; Dissertations; Academic thesis; Semiotik; Alphabetisierung; Schreib- und Lesefähigkeit; Teaching method; Lehrmethode; Unterrichtsmethode; Cognitive process; Kognitiver Prozess; Sinnerfassendes Lesen; Schriftliche Übung; Geisteswissenschaften; English language; Englisch; Physik; Maschinenbau; Staatliche Universität; Reading strategy; Leselernstufe; Lesetechnik; Vorhersage; Meta cognitive ability; Meta-cognition; Metakognitive Fähigkeit; Metakognition; Textbook; Text book; Schulbuch; Lehrbuch; Co-operation; Kooperation; Fächerübergreifender Unterricht; Fächerverbindender Unterricht; Interdisziplinarität; Finanzielle Förderung; Journal article; Zeitschriftenaufsatz; Fakultät; English language lessons; Teacher; Teachers; Englischunterricht; Lehrer; Lehrerin; Lehrende; Science; Science teacher; Wissenschaft; Leseverstehen
Abstract	Recent scholarship on secondary reading calls for a shift from teaching generic literacy strategies to teaching discipline-specific language and literacy practices (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2008; Moje, 2008; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012). This call for disciplinary literacy instruction (DLI) reflects the growing recognition that literacy instruction in the content areas should aim at promoting the development of students' ability to engage in social, semiotic, and cognitive practices compatible with those undertaken by disciplinary experts. Many teacher education programs are now exploring ways to implement DLI. Successful implementation of DLI requires first and foremost, that literacy teacher educators have a deep understanding of the language and literacy practices that are specific to each discipline. The present study addresses this need by examining how disciplinary experts read and comprehend texts inside and outside of their areas of specialization (cognitive practice), how they interact with members of their professional communities (social practice), and what semiotic resources they value in disciplinary meaning-making (semiotic practice). One expert each from the fields of physics, engineering, and English participated in this study. They were all full professors at a flagship state university in a southeastern state of the United States. Data collected included the experts' think-aloud protocols while reading texts within and outside their specialization, observations of the experts in their daily work environments, interviews with the experts regarding their reading think-alouds and their daily work, and artifacts used or produced by the experts. All of the data were transcribed and inductively coded. Themes that emerged resulted in a narrative of each expert's cognitive, social, and semiotic practices. The study found that in terms of cognitive practice, the three experts used some of the same strategies (e.g. sourcing, contextualization) but for different purposes when reading texts within and outside their specializations. They used these strategies as tools for quickly discerning resources of value for further exploring a topic, predicting quality of the work, or considering the reliability of the publication. The experts also used strategies in ways that were specific to the disciplines. The physicist and engineer gathered information from texts as they read in a nonlinear fashion, quickly moving back and forth between visual elements and linguistic text. By contrast, the literary expert read each page of the text sequentially. Additionally, all three experts used some of the generic reading strategies -- such as note taking, predicting, summarizing, and self-monitoring -- commonly found in content area reading textbooks, with self-monitoring of understanding and confusion much more heavily used with the text outside the experts' specializations. With regard to social practice, the three experts engaged in peer collaboration; however, the nature and extent of such collaboration vary across disciplines. The engineer and physicist were directly involved in interdisciplinary collaborations with teams of researchers within and outside of their home country, while the literary expert engaged in domestic collaborations that involved infrequent communications through email exchanges. Moreover, the research of the engineer and physicist were typically collaborative efforts with students, where external funding was secured and publications were multi-authored. The literary expert had a very lengthy research process involving many years of reading, note taking, and synthesizing that usually resulted in a solo-authored academic monograph. With respect to semiotic practice, the physicist and engineer placed a premium on research articles in peer reviewed academic journals and drew heavily on visual elements (e.g. data, figures, pictures, mathematical equations) as well as natural language in their meaning making. The literary expert, on the other hand, highly valued academic monographs and journal articles that were composed using only linguistic text. The majority of the texts used by these experts are simultaneously technical, dense, and abstract, construing specialized knowledge in ways that conform to discipline-specific norms and values. Taken together, the study demonstrates that the physics, engineering, and English professors engaged in language and literacy practices that are both unique to their disciplines and applicable across disciplines. It suggests that literacy instruction in the content areas should attend to not only discipline-specific ways of knowing, learning, and engaging with others but also time-honored, generic literacy strategies. The precise nature of this balance, including its operationalization and implementation, can be the subject of future investigations. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.] (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Tel: 800-521-0600; Web site: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01