So What?
Adams,
A. E., & Pegg, J. (2012). Teachers' Enactment of Content Literacy Strategies in Secondary Science and Mathematics Classes. Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(2),
151-161.
Purpose: Adams and Pegg want to illustrate how effective
strategies and modifications can improve student literacy in the mathematics
and science contents.
What was
studied/discussed: They studied the ways in
which teachers incorporate content literacy strategies into their
instruction. The 26 teachers for this
study were taken from “high-needs” (pg. 153) schools and taught math and/or
science in grades ranging from 6-12. The
teachers participated in workshops and classes pertaining to content literacy,
literacy strategies, and “tools to support student construction of content
understanding” (pg 153). The teachers
then were observed, their lesson plans evaluated, and asked to reflect on their
experiences. The teacher reflections and
discussions were used to “triangulate” (pg. 154) the data collected.
Important terms: Rehearsal, Reorganization, and Transitional; literacy
strategies; Frayer Model; VVWA (Verbal
Visual Word Association)
Results: All of the teachers incorporated the strategies they
learned into their lessons, but they did so in differing manners. Adams and Pegg found that the teachers were
enacting these strategies in either rehearsal, reorganizational, or
transitional manners. The observations
also shed light on the modifications of the strategies that each teacher
enacted. Many of the teachers modified
the strategies so that they “aligned with their instructional goals and current
practices” (pg 158), which resulted in minimal conflict between
strategies. The modifications often
resulted in helpful strategies for students.
However, there was not enough data to suggest that the modifications of
the tools were used “in ways that enhance student learning” (pg 159).
So What? : The study may not have come to a clear conclusion on
whether the literacy-instructional adaptations are truly helpful, but there are
many aspects that would certainly be beneficial for our students. The article details the Rehearsal,
Reorganization, and Transitional approaches to literacy strategies, and I
really like them. I think utilizing
aspects of each approach in our math and science classes would most certainly
enhance student learning. The saying goes, “everything is good in
moderation,” so what is considered moderation when adapting these approaches
for instructional purposes?
The rehearsal and reorganizational
approaches contain strategies that help students in three phases of the
class: writing, reading, and vocabulary,
with emphasis being placed on the writing and vocabulary. Mathematics education hinges on how well
students reproduce the information they have learned and how well they
understand the concepts and terms. We
must be able to utilize both approaches, passive and active, and blend them so
that our students are challenged and learn from those challenges. How do
we balance between the two differing approaches, so that we are not monotonous
to our students?
How can we
use these approaches in the near future?
The
reorganizational approach is everywhere in Common Core. Our students are being asked to discuss their
knowledge with one another. This would
certainly engage the students, and help them to “construct meaning” and “draw
on background knowledge” (pg 158). The
students would be active in their learning, rather than sitting back and
memorizing (i.e. rehearsal approach).
The reorganizational approach also promotes technology, which is
ever-growing in our society.
How do we
attain success? These approaches are
highly adaptable, which is the point of the article. Teachers must be able to modify the
approaches in order to align the goals of the strategy with the goals of the
instruction. The approaches should be modified
with goals in mind and incorporated with our student’s knowledge for maximum
effectiveness. And only then can we
utilize the tools in ways that genuinely enhance student understanding.
