ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
&quot;Teach Reading? but I&apos;m Not a Reading Teacher!&quot;
Author: Hurst, Beth
Date: 2013-00-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: Reading Instruction,Teacher Responsibility,Critical Reading,Content Area Reading,Content Area Writing,Intellectual Disciplines,Literacy,Listening,Reading,Reading Strategies,Vocabulary Development,Reading Aloud to Others,Oral Reading,Middle School Students,Secondary School Students

A critical issue in education today is that many middle and high school students are not able to read on grade level (Alvermann &amp; Rush, 2004; Biancarosa &amp; Snow, 2010; Heller &amp; Greenleaf, 2007; Houge, Geier, &amp; Peyton, 2008). In an effort to deal with the problem, many schools encourage all teachers, regardless of their subject area, to emphasize reading in their classes, because as Rasinski, Padak, McKeon, Wilfong, Friedauer, and Heim (2005) state, &quot;if our goal is to improve student performance across content areas, then improvements in general reading abilities must be a goal&quot; (p. 26). This is often met with a great deal of resistance because not only have most teachers not been trained in the reading process, but they also do not feel it is their responsibility to teach reading. Heller and Greenleaf (2007) state, &quot;At the secondary level, the responsibility for teaching reading and writing often seems to belong to no one in particular&quot; (p. 15). However, Shanahan (2012) makes the point that the &quot;idea of disciplinary literacy is that students not only have to learn the essential content of a field, but how reading and writing are used in that field&quot; (para. 3). He contends teachers in any field can help students read text critically in the same way professionals in the fields would read the text, instead of merely helping students learn what they need for a test. The purpose of this article is to provide a structure that any teacher, regardless of content area and training in reading instruction, can use to help students hone the literacy skills necessary to explore, develop, and expand content area knowledge. The suggested structure is based on a review of the literature that states: students need to (a) &quot;listen to others read aloud&quot; (Miller, 2002; Rasinski, 2003; Routman, 2003); (b) &quot;read often&quot; (Allington, 2006; Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, &amp; Wilkinson, 1985; Cunningham, 2009), (c) &quot;practice using reading strategies&quot; (Beers, 2003; National Reading Panel, 2000), (d) &quot;interact with texts and each other&quot; (Routman, 2003, 2005: Vacca, Vacca, &amp; Mraz, 2011), and (e) &quot;develop a word consciousness&quot; (Harmon, Wood, &amp; Medina, 2009; Scott &amp; Nagy, 2004).
Contextualized Support for Urban Teachers Implementing Writer&apos;s Workshop
Author: Kaiser, Eileen
Date: 2013-00-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: Context Effect,Elementary School Teachers,Urban Schools,Writing Workshops,Faculty Development,Student Needs,Program Implementation,Fidelity,Career Academies,Peer Relationship,College School Cooperation,Coaching (Performance),Reading Instruction,Educational Opportunities,Writing Skills,Teaching Methods,Grounded Theory

Gladwell (2000) describes context as &quot;the tipping point&quot; for leveraging change. This paper explores how differentiated learning opportunities situated in the school context supported changes in practice for urban elementary teachers during the implementation of Writer&apos;s Work-shop (Calkins, 2003 &amp; 2006). The teachers in this study were offered an integrated network of support and professional growth options tailored to meet evolving learning needs over time in order to ensure high fidelity implementation in their classrooms. These learning opportunities included demonstration lessons and follow up debriefs, targeted learning walks, and working with a peer partner, university partner and literacy coaches. The key levers for change examined in this paper were dedicating time for teachers to engage in critical dialogue with colleagues, and offering multiple contexts for teachers to lead these conversations.
The Creative Process Entailed in the Co-Construction of Classroom Curriculum
Author: Ketsman, Olha
Date: 2013-00-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: Curriculum Development,Creativity,Student Participation,Teacher Role,Student Role,Imagination,Play,Technology Integration

Eisner (1991) defines culture as a place for growing things. School constitutes an essential culture where students&apos; minds can be grown and developed and where learning can be fostered. Teachers are in charge of developing and fostering young minds and because they participate in the culture called school they have many possibilities and opportunities to do so. Although teachers and students have endless opportunities for making meaningful and solid connections across areas of study, across time, home, learning and community they do not always do so. Often teachers are racing to prepare students for a test or any other type of standardized assessment forgetting about giving precious classroom time for lingering, imagination, creativity, or play. According to May (1993), lingering implies a process of making room for self and reflect upon self-relation to the world. Lingering requires space and time to create a community in the classroom; a community that allows for collaboration between teachers and students when adapting curriculum (Grumet, 1993). According to Winston (2010), &quot;practically everything in education can these days be qualified as creative&quot; (p.88), but is it really creative or is it just a nice name, a trendy cliché? Does the educational system really value creativity and give enough space to imagine in classrooms? Do teachers enable students to become creative and innovative as opposed to conventional and predictive? While working with pre-service teachers the author observed that creativity, imagination, spontaneity, originality are perceived as qualities that are good to have but are sometimes considered &quot;extras.&quot; These qualities are not always given space and time to develop in today&apos;s classroom curriculum. The purpose of this paper is to lead a discussion on the importance of creating, adapting, changing, attending, building the curriculum, and allowing students in the classroom to be meaning makers and co-creators of curriculum.
Asian Pacific American College Freshman: Attitudes toward the Abolishment of Affirmative Action in College Admissions
Author: Hartlep, Nicholas D.
Date: 2013-00-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: Asian American Students,Student Attitudes,Affirmative Action,Equal Education,Educational Opportunities,Higher Education,College Freshmen,Educational Policy,Minority Group Students,Disproportionate Representation,Low Income,Immigrants,Second Language Learning,English (Second Language),Models,Misconceptions

Affirmative action is perceived as a corrective policy intended to promote social equity (Crosby, Iyer, &amp; Sincharoen, 2006; Curry &amp; West, 1996; Kaplin &amp; Lee, 2007; Oppenheimer, 1996). Indeed, affirmative action as a policy has been used to address minority underrepresentation (Ball, 2000), remedying the effects of past/current discrimination (Oppenheimer, 1996; Tsuang, 1989), increasing diversity (Hsia, 1988), and providing equal opportunity (Dong, 1995). Dong (1995) states that in order for educational affirmative action to equalize opportunity for all students, at times it requires that some students be treated differently. Originally something that was created for employment (Executive Order 11246 under the direction of Lyndon Johnson; also see Crosby, Iyer, &amp; Sincharoen, 2006; Oppenheimer, 1996, p. 929), affirmative action spread into other areas such as higher education. As a result, affirmative action facilitates the offering of flexible college admissions requirements for underrepresented applicants (Inkelas, 2003b). Underrepresented students may be racial minorities, but they may also be low-income, immigrants, language minorities, nontraditional, female, White, and/or first-time generation college students (Levine &amp; Nidiffer, 1996). This article examines the attitudes that Asian Pacific American (APA) college freshmen hold toward the abolishment of affirmative action in college admissions. Frequently APAs are stereotyped as being &quot;model minorities&quot; (Brydolf, 2009; Chinn, 2002; Empleo, 2006; Pang, Han, &amp; Pang, 2011). This label implies that they are educationally and socially successful, and that they do not experience discrimination. As a consequence of this label, oftentimes APAs are not considered &quot;underrepresented,&quot; and are thus ineligible for affirmative action protection (Wu &amp; Wang, 1996). Most insidious though, studies have documented that APAs may support the elimination of affirmative action against their better judgment (Kang, 1996; Kidder, 2006).
Places of Belonging: Awakening a Zone of Complacency
Author: Foley, Jean Ann
Date: 2013-00-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: Teacher Effectiveness,Scores,Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation,Curriculum Design,Instruction,Lesson Plans,Art Education,Context Effect,Personal Narratives,College Students,Teacher Education

Although education has seen trends of progressive ideologies that promote student and teacher empowerment (Ayers, 2011; Lyons, Catallozzi, &amp; Benson, 1998; Spring, 2008), the dominant educational discourse mirrors a business model of efficiency expressed by the social economist Lester Frank Ward (1872). Evidence of contemporary education replicating an industrialized manufacturing society can be seen in the recent Race to the Top (2009) incentives, No Child Left Behind (2002) requirements, teacher abilities tightly linked to standardized test scores (Nichols &amp; Berliner, 2007), and courses in the arts and humanities dropped from the curriculum (Slouka, 2008). In this article, Associate Professor Jean Foley argues that these practices can hobble teachers and anesthetize students, in particular teacher candidates who sit in the &quot;zone of complacency.&quot; This is a zone that acts as an impervious field against questions, uncertainty, and risk. Curriculum and pedagogy that are tightly tied to predetermined products, such as standardized test scores and scripted lesson plans, separate aesthetics from learning and entrap students and teachers within a discourse of sterilized neutrality. In Foley's courses, she uses art to challenge the factory model of learning and invite the dispassionate learner to link their understanding to their significance in the world and relationship to others. The purpose of this paper is to suggest a path that might help reframe curriculum to include personal context and in so doing pierce the zone of complacency. Foley shares her &quot;Places of Belonging&quot; assignment not as a solution to the complex problems in education, but as an offering to call into question the ideologies that emphasize a factory model view of education where student and teacher achievement is measured as a static product (Nichols &amp; Berliner, 2007).
Beyond Dependency: Strategies for Saving Foundations
Author: Schutz, Aaron
Date: 2013-00-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: Foundations of Education,Educational Change,Schools of Education,Case Studies,Education Courses,College Programs,Enrollment,Undergraduate Students,Graduate Students,Online Courses

The foundations field cannot sustain itself in its present condition. A range of complex forces have combined to marginalize foundations over the past few decades. The decline of this field as a separate discipline in schools of education has been abetted by the fact that foundations is generally a &quot;service provider&quot; to other programs. Over time, other departments have cannibalized foundations' content while dismissing their relevance. In this article, Associate Professors and Founding Deans Aaron Schutz and Dan Butin argue that to a large extent, foundations shares responsibility for the decline of their field; they have failed to come together in effective coalitions to defend their importance. At times, the content of their courses has sometimes seemed narrow and irrelevant, but even when they are not, content alone is unlikely to save them. Schutz and Butin observe that foundations generally operates from a position of relative weakness in schools of education: they provide service to programs but generally do not have their own strong programs. They &quot;take&quot; enrollment from other departments, but do not &quot;give&quot; enrollment to them or bring independent enrollment to the school. This leaves foundations in a position of dependency. The core argument of this paper is that the field of foundations needs to move beyond dependency toward a vision of foundations as, at least in part, a provider of robust (if collaborative) programs of its own, and he discusses a range of strategies designed to foster the development of such programs. Amidst the current environment, Schutz and Butin believe that foundations will find it increasingly difficult to make their arguments stick without the associated power to make themselves heard. This article is meant as a call to discussion and action. It begins with the belief that the foundations field is the best place in schools of education for rigorous and relevant examination of and engagement with issues of inequality and broader community-based issues as they relate to the context of schools. The authors outline the theoretical underpinning of this perspective and offer a case study of an already-existing program that has developed to the point that it could survive quite successfully even if all of the service courses were eliminated. They then discuss the potential lessons that could be drawn from this case study.
Social Foundations of Education and the Political Equilibrium
Author: Al-Daraweesh, Fuad
Date: 2013-00-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: Foundations of Education,Democracy,Social Systems,Social Bias,Social Justice,Political Issues,Socioeconomic Influences,Communication Strategies,Economic Factors,History,Public Schools,Ideology,Politics of Education,Equal Education,Power Structure

One of the most discernable qualities of American society is the contradiction it holds between its economic and political systems, namely, capitalism and democracy. Despite scholars&apos; efforts to reconcile both systems, the demands of both systems are incongruous with each other. Capitalism is driven by the logic of inequality, driven as it is by unequal accumulation of capital, and democracy is driven by the logic of equality, driven as it is by the normative claim of moral and political equality. Thus in order to maintain stability over time, it is imperative for the economic system to include a political element that mitigates inequality through various social, and educational institutions. The process of mitigation is important in containing significant conflict between unequal social groups that would destabilize the social system. In other words, a kind of political equilibrium is required in a democratic and capitalist society. In this paper, Fuad Al-Daraweesh, argues that Social Foundations of Education (hereafter SFE) serves to maintain this political equilibrium. It will be argued that SFE is a contributing factor in the mitigation of inequality by recognizing the cultural political authority of economically and socially oppressed groups. The argument is premised on the idea that the scope and the content of SFE is to mitigate the harsh reality of inequality, and consequently promotes a certain conception of justice. This conception ought to cultivate a consensus on issues related to justice. This conception influences significantly thinking about social institutions. Mitigating inequality is a neutralizer between unequal asymmetrical relations, which serve as a means to depoliticize, and consequently achieve a balance. The argument is grounded in the work of Mannheim, Galtung, Foucualt, and Tozer. A bibliography is provided.
Action Foundations! a Comic (Book) Tale of Defending Educational Studies
Author: Nuñez, Isabel
Date: 2013-00-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: Teaching Methods,Foundations of Education,Social Influences,Educational Philosophy,Teacher Education,Methods Courses,Academic Standards,Curriculum Design,Social Justice,Teacher Responsibility,Social Responsibility,Figurative Language,Higher Education,Postsecondary Education

When defending educational foundations, Isabel Nunez and Pamela Konkol sometimes find themselves responding to the question of &quot;why?&quot;-often phrased, &quot;But WHYYYYY do we have to take a class on this stuff??? (We want to take more methods!).&quot; As distressing as this can be for teacher educators whose own work reveals rather a marked fondness for both the social and philosophical foundations, it is nevertheless necessary to convince students that the philosophy, history, and sociology of education are relevant and meaningful to their work in the classroom. This is a struggle with which Nunez and Konkol have been engaged since 2006 when both of them started work at their institution (the same week, in offices just across the hall from each other&apos;s). They are usually successful with their students, or they know well which sides of their grades are buttered. If only it was their students alone they needed to convince. The past seven years they&apos;ve also needed to defend the necessity and utility of the range of foundations of education to many colleagues among the college faculty and administration. Their &quot;why&quot; questions are similar: &quot;how can we make room in the curriculum for these &quot;luxury&quot; courses when we have to meet the standards?&quot; (whatever standards those might be). This task can be more challenging but they did persuade enough of their University colleagues to vote for the creation of The Department of Foundations, Social Policy and Research in the summer of 2009 possible. It has been an interesting journey, with both hills and valleys, and one they say that they are glad to be traveling together. It is the story of these travels that Nunez and Konkol would like to share in this article, and, in the spirit of hope and optimism, they decided to begin with the most inspiring moment of that tale: the birth of the new foundations department at a time when this area was under fire throughout the field of education. A bibliography is provided.
Defending and Goading the Foundations of Education
Author: DeVitis, Joseph L.
Date: 2013-00-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: Foundations of Education,Teacher Education,Educational Benefits,Higher Education,Public Education,Scholarship

In their recent landmark study of undergraduate education in America, &quot;Academically Adrift,&quot; Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa question whether colleges and universities are really able to justify their traditionally exalted reputations. The study paints a rather dismal portrait of how little learning may actually be taking place on our campuses. If their report is substantially accurate, academe will have to defend itself against strident calls for change from the public, policymakers, and politicians of all stripes. The latter will be asking these kinds of questions: do students, parents, and employers regard higher education as primarily a credentialing institution, regardless of how much or little learning is occurring? Are students reading and writing far less than previous generations? In particular, are they doing less lengthy, sustained reading and writing? Has academic rigor been on the wane for some time now? Is the academy nurturing critical thinking or simply giving lip service to that taken-for-granted goal? In this article Joseph DeVitis pursues a line of thinking in which he believes the foundations of education can offer significant antidotes to this assumed academic malaise if the public, policymakers, politicians, and even teacher education colleagues understand and agree to unleash the full power of the field of education foundations. He posits that instead, offerings have been marginalized and largely set aside. At the same time, university leaders continue to call for more preparation in civic and moral education, and DeVitis says the he knows of few fields that can perform that function better than the foundations of education. What DeVitis is ultimately arguing is that foundations of education scholars and practitioners would be more valuable to schools and society if they kept their public-intellectual role at the forefront of their activities. In fulfilling that role in its widest sense, they could be assisting in solving some of the most important issues of the day, both practical and moral. To do this, he calls for foundation practitioners to develop more generalizing vocabularites so that they can more directly affect public discourse and policy. He sees the need for foundation educators to soften ties to discipleship, to restrain themselves from focus on esoteric articles and useless grants that pad curriculum vitaes and rob students of educator presence. A bibliography is included.
Digital Renegades in America: Changing Metaphors to Realize the Potential of Technology in Education
Author: Smith, Thomas
Date: 2013-00-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: Information Technology,Educational Technology,Educational Change,Technological Literacy,Figurative Language,Role,Teaching Methods,Educational Practices,Democratic Values,Teacher Role

In 2001, Marc Prensky introduced a new metaphor to the educational landscape. He suggested that the rising generation were growing up in a time so filled with new media that they were &quot;digital natives,&quot; while those born earlier were &quot;digital immigrants.&quot; In this view, because the digital natives are growing up immersed in a sea of technology, the ways they learn, interact, and envision the world are markedly different. In contrast, the older generations or digital immigrants, are more plodding and hesitant when it comes to change and technology and, as a result, are behind the times when it comes to learning, teaching, and being. The result is an approach to schooling that marginalizes teachers (digital immigrants) and enthrones technology as the unquestioned savior of the rising generation (digital natives). Since its inception, the digital native/digital immigrant metaphor has become the defining metaphor among teachers and many others for the role of technology in education. Thomas Smith, however, believes the unquestioningly Pollyanna-ish view of technology&apos;s good and dreary view of teachers and their agency inside the classroom is ill-suited to the needs of a society, such as ours, facing a need for more democratic approaches and practices in schools. Furthermore, the outright dismissal of teachers runs counter to the idea of teacher agency and power and the notion that teachers are tools of democratic renewal and growth (Dewey, 2004; Freire, 1970; Giroux, 2005). As a result, Smith argues that the digital native/digital immigrant metaphor needs to be put aside and a new metaphor is needed to help guide our thinking and actions as we confront the perils and potentials embodied in new technologies in the classroom.