Search results

This paper aims to explore recent research (2007-2017) on the implementation of multimodal writing instruction in secondary English courses. It seeks to highlight the varied ways in which theoretical conceptions of multimodality have been implemented in writing instruction and the impacts of these implementations on students' experiences in classrooms.

The author used a keyword search of relevant academic databases to identity articles within the search parameters. This was followed by bibliographic branching to identify additional articles and two rounds of open coding to identify themes for analysis.

The literature revealed a diversity of approaches to incorporating multimodal writing in classrooms; teachers mixed modalities within assignments, paired writing in print with multimodal composition and redesigned entire units or courses around multimodality. Studies showed the impact of multimodality on student learning through shifts in conceptions of communication, increases in student engagement, composition for real audiences and an increased role for students’ interests and identities.

This review has implications for teachers and researchers interested in developing multimodal writing curricula. It highlights the specific ways in which multimodal writing can be incorporated into instruction and the changes in student learning that result from this shift.

While theoretical writing on multimodality is abundant, multiple researchers have noted the difficulty of finding research on classroom implementations of multimodality (Howell et al., 2017; Smith, 2017). This review is intended to address this difficulty by contributing to a body of literature that teachers and scholars can draw on as they conceptualize and design multimodal writing experiences for students in the future.

Recently, practitioner literature in English education has taken up the issue of writing-related shame in classrooms, calling for teachers to help students develop resilience. One possible approach for nurturing shame resilience around writing is dialogic collaging: students make and dialogically engage with collages and with colleagues to explore the self-as-writer and to connect with others around writing struggles and joys. The purpose of this paper is to share and critically reflect on this pedagogical approach.

To share, interpret and consider the limitations and implications of the dialogic collaging pedagogy in service of writing-related shame resilience, the authors offer a multi-voiced narrative about one classroom instantiation of college, from the perspective of a university writing teacher and a student of writing.

On the interpretation, this story unfolds three central themes as follows: dialogic collaging can help students to develop a more realistic and situated sense of self-as-writer. That is, students can come to appreciate how “becoming a writer” is a process they – and others around them – are already in, rather than an unreachable achievement at which they will inevitably fail. The stance of playfulness nurtured through the dialogic collage process can provide a helpful distance between self and writing. These processes may – under certain conditions – support shame resilience.

The conclusion reflects on whether more explicit attention to shame could be fruitful and on the dynamics of teacher vulnerability in writing classrooms.

The authors hope to inspire writing teachers – particularly in secondary, post-secondary and adult education – to engage with dialogic collaging as part of their pedagogical repertoires.

Dialogic collaging is a pedagogical approach not previously discussed in the literature on secondary and post-secondary writing instruction, offering one promising way to address writing-related shame. It can make visible and build solidarity around how others are also in the midst of a process of becoming – as writers and/or with writing. This appreciation can help nurture a more realistic, playful and shame-resilient stance toward self-as-writer.

This chapter provides a look at the experiences of two Teacher Educators in the Field (TEFs) as they work to shift writing instruction in suburban districts across the Houston metroplex. A review of the literature on most promising practices for literacy educators is provided along with narrative interspersion of restoried enactments of TEFs in public education systems serving students in grades 6–12. Our planned and lived experiences were often dissonant due to the complexity of increasingly diverse demographic populations in fast-growing districts who struggled to shift the focus of instruction in correlation to audience. Our stories present focused reflection on the need for additional supports geared toward teacher development, TEF retention, and consistent engagement from campus and district-level administrators.

Although English Language Arts (ELA) teachers have historically been expected to take the lead in literacy training, the domain of ELA has yet come to terms with what holds it together as a discipline. Within this conundrum, the author studied one group of ELA teacher leaders who led a professional development (PD) aimed at training teachers in disciplinary writing instruction. This study aims to explore the differences in perspectives between what constitutes disciplinarity for ELA teachers and teachers in other content areas.

Over the course of two years, the author observed the PD, taking extensive field notes, collecting artifacts and conducting interviews. The author engaged in constant comparative analysis of the data throughout this time, open coding within each data source and then triangulating the data to support the author’s finding.

Whereas the ELA teacher leaders seemed to focus on general aspects of writing, teachers from the other content areas shared discipline-specific understandings about writing. The teachers and teacher leaders, however, did not explicitly discuss these differences in how they conceptualized writing instruction; rather, this tension was revealed through the author’s analysis of the data.

The findings of this study illustrate how a vague definition of writing in English and of disciplinary literacy has come to bear on one PD of writing. This study recommends future research to continue to develop clear epistemologies, purposes and literate practices of the disciplines related to ELA.

This comparative study aims to investigate the rhetorical organization of Korean and English argumentative texts. In previous studies, the rhetorical organization of such texts has been categorized as either direct or indirect depending on the placement of the thesis statement (Chien, 2011). The present study attempts to document more specific rhetorical patterns using Swales (1990) concept of moves and steps.

Ten Korean EFL students with similar L1 and L2 literacy backgrounds were selected, and, adopting a within-subject design, the students wrote two argumentative essays, one in Korean and one in English, in response to two different topics. The students’ essays were analyzed at both the macro and micro levels. The focus of the macro-level analysis was on the placement of the thesis statement and of topic sentences in each of the body paragraphs. Once the macro-level analysis was done, the essays were analyzed at the micro level using Swales (1990) move analysis.

The findings suggest that both texts were organized in a similar way at the macro level, constituting a typical paper structure (i.e. introduction, body and conclusion). However, a difference appears at the micro level: the students used a variety of steps to create a move when writing in Korean, whereas little variation was found in the English texts. An analysis of the data suggests the possibility that the standardized moves and steps in the English texts may be due not to culture-specific rhetoric, but to a lack of practice with rhetorical thinking in English.

In previous studies, the rhetorical organization of texts has been categorized as either direct or indirect depending on the placement of the thesis statement. The present study uses the framework of move analysis to describe more specific organizational patterns of Korean and English writing to determine the extent to which Korean and English writing is similar in the genre of argumentative writing. Another significance of the study lies in the choice of Korean writing as a reference point for comparison with English writing. It has been widely noted that there is a dearth of research of Korean students’ writing in contrastive rhetoric. To the best of the author’s knowledge, most of the contrastive rhetoric studies were conducted with Chinese or Japanese student writers.

Struggling writers and students with disabilities tend to have difficulties with multiple aspects of the writing process. Therefore, in this chapter, we describe Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD; Harris, Graham, Mason, & Friedlander, 2008). SRSD is a writing intervention with extensive research demonstrating its effectiveness for improving the writing quality of struggling writers and students with disabilities when implemented by both teachers and researchers in a variety of educational settings. We also describe an ineffective writing practice, stand-alone grammar instruction. Although this type of grammar instruction is explicit, it is removed from an authentic writing context, and decades of research have demonstrated its negative effects on students’ writing quality. We close the chapter with recommendations for future research on SRSD as well as general suggestions for teachers who provide writing instruction to struggling writers and students with disabilities.

This chapter presents “what we know” about the application of technology to instruction for students with learning and behavioral disabilities. Information is presented on research-based effective practices in technological interventions for teaching specific academic skills, delivering content at the secondary level and using technology as a tool for assessment. The chapter concludes with a discussion on Universal Design for Learning and the promises this paradigm holds for educating not only students with special needs, but all learners. The chapter begins where parents and teachers typically begin: the consideration of technology.

This paper presents recently published resources on library instruction and information literacy. It provides an introductory overview and a selected annotated bibliography of publications covering various library types, study populations and research contexts. The selected bibliography is useful to efficiently keep up with trends in library instruction for busy practitioners, library science students and those wishing to learn about information literacy in other contexts.

This article annotates 424 English-language periodical articles, monographs, dissertations, theses and reports on library instruction and information literacy published in 2021. The sources were selected from the EBSCO platform for Library, Information Science, and Technology Abstracts (LISTA), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and WorldCat, published in 2021 that included the terms “information literacy,” “library instruction,” or “information fluency” in the title, abstract or keywords. The sources were organized in Zotero. Annotations summarize the source, focusing on the findings or implications. Each source was categorized into one of seven pre-determined categories: K-12 Education, Children and Adolescents; Academic and Professional Programs; Everyday Life, Community, and the Workplace; Libraries and Health Information Literacy; Multiple Library Types; and Other Information Literacy Research and Theory.

The paper provides a brief description of 424 sources and highlights sources that contain unique or significant scholarly contributions.

The information may be used by librarians, researchers and anyone interested as a quick and comprehensive reference to literature on library instruction and information literacy within 2021.

To describe the role of teaching “the paragraph” in furthering literacy goals. The study considers one concept, the Claim-Support-Conclusion Paragraph (CSC) as a curricular and pedagogic intervention supporting writing and academic success for the marginalized students in two classrooms.

While this study corresponds to a gap in the literature of writing instruction (and paragraphing), it takes as its model the development of comprehensive collaborations where researcher-scholars embed themselves in the real practices of school classrooms. A fully-fledged partnership between researcher, practitioners, is characteristic of “practice embedded educational research,” or PEER (Snow, 2015), with analysis of data following qualitative and case study methodology.

Practice-embedded research in this partnership consistently revealed several important themes, including the effective use of the CSC paragraph functions as a critical common denominator across rich curricular choices. Extensive use of writing practice drives increased literacy fluency for struggling students, and writing practice can be highly integrated with reading practice. Effective writing instruction likely includes analytic and interpretive purposes, as well as personal, aesthetic writing, and teaching good paragraphing is intertwined with all of these genres in a community that values writing routines.

Greater academic success for the marginalized students in their classroom necessitates the use of a variety of scaffolds, and writing instruction can include the CSC paragraph as a means to develop academic literacies, including argumentation. Collaborative and innovative work with curriculum within a PEER model may have affordances for developing practitioner and researcher knowledge about writing instruction.

This paper presents recently published resources on library instruction and information literacy, providing an introductory overview and a selected annotated bibliography of publications covering various library types, study populations and research contexts.

This paper introduces and annotates English-language periodical articles, monographs, dissertations, reports and other materials on library instruction and information literacy published in 2020.

The paper provides a brief description of all 440 sources and highlights sources that contain unique or significant scholarly contributions.

The information may be used by librarians, researchers and anyone interested in a quick and comprehensive reference to literature on library instruction and information literacy.