27 SES 01 B, Teaching and Learning: Texts, writing and experience
In order to develop as readers, students must read a variety of texts for a variety of purposes. This has long been a highly prioritized area of school development within OECD countries in general and in the curricula in different European countries (e.g OECD 2016). In addition to reading diverse non-fiction texts across school subjects, students need to engage in reading fiction. There is strong research evidence that reading fiction does not only develop literary text competence, but also a general text competence not only important for reading in itself, but also to enable students to acquire knowledge and express themselves in various subjects and situations. As Langer (op.cit) emphasizes, “reading literature involves cognitive dimensions that are critical components of intellectual development”. Literature has always been considered a central part of language arts (L1) curricula, and it still a key component of language arts. Yet, an essential change is taking place across countries: the core central focus of language arts is changing from literature to literacy, stressing more and more non-fiction (Langer, 2013, p.162). This shift makes it timely to investigate the roles of literary texts across language arts lessons.
Previous studies have indicated the importance of instruction that provides students with opportunities to discuss texts to build a deeper understanding of them (Applebee et.al, 2003; Nystrand, 2006; Wilkinson & Son, 2011, Janssen et.al, 2006). The literary tradition the students learn within, appears to be an important factor for how students handle literary qualities in the texts they read (Johansson, 2015), and there are a various of ways to approach literary texts. Research on students' work with fiction texts have shown that there are two main instructional traditions when working with fiction: An experiential approach – focusing mainly on how students’ experience a literary text and their subjective reasoning around the texts - and an analytical approach – where students are often asked to analyze literary texts in different ways, often with evidence from the text (e.g Rødnes, 2012; Swann & Allington, 2009). Researchers in the field proposes to facilitate both personal and analytical readings (e.g Rødnes 2014, Langer 2013, Fjørtoft 2014), but how students actually work with literary texts in their lessons – and what purposes this instruction has, is an understudied area in times where the role of literature in school may be challenged by a strong focus on general, non-fiction literacy.
The present study draws on 180 video-recorded language arts lessons across 46 secondary classrooms in Norway. By analyzing these recordings using a validated language arts specific manual (The Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observation), our study investigates how literary text are used in language arts lessons, and to what extent the instruction provides student with opportunities to gain a deeper understanding of the text.
The main aim of the presentation is twofold: first, we provide an overview of the opportunities for active use of texts in video recorded language arts lessons (N=180) gathered at 46 different Norwegian schools. Second, we analyze how the texts are used (what function they serve), with a particular emphasis on the classrooms where texts are used actively to build a deeper understanding of the text and/or genre and how to approach texts in general.
Applebee, A.N., Langer, J., Nystrand, M. & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), s. 685–730. Fjørtoft, H. (2014). Norskdidaktikk [Norwegian Didactics]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Gambrel, L.B., Malloy, J.A., & Mazzoni, S.A. (2011). Evidence-Based Best Practices in Comprehensive Literacy Instruction. I: L.M. Morrow & L.B. Gambrell (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction. New York: The Guilford Press. Grossman, P., Loeb, S., Cohen, J., Hammerness, K., Wyckoff, J., Boyd, D., & Lankford, H. (2010). Measure for measure: The relationship between measures of instructional practice in middle school English language arts and teachers’ value-added scores. Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: analysing social interaction in everyday life. Los Angeles: Sage. Janssen, T., Braaksma, M. & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2006). Literary reading activities of good and weak students: A think aloud study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 11(1), s. 35–52. Langer, J. A. (2013). The role of literature and literary reasoning in English language arts and English classrooms. In: Goodman, K (ed.) Whose knowledge counts in government literacy policies, 161-166. Nystrand, M. (2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English 40(4), 392–412. OECD (2016). PISA 2018. DRAFT ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/PISA-2018-draft-frameworks.pdf Rødnes, K.A. (2012). ”It’s Insanely Useful!” Students' use of instructional concepts in group work and individual writing. Language and Education,26(3), 183-199. Rødnes, K.A. (2014). Skjønnlitteratur i klasserommet: Skandinavisk forskning og didaktiske implikasjoner [Fiction in the Classroom: Scandinavian research and didactic implications]. Acta Didactica Norge, Vol. 8 Nr 1 Art 5. Snell, J. (2011). Interrogating video data: systematic quantitative analysis versus micro ethnographic analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(3), 253-258. Swann, J., and D. Allington. (2009). Reading groups and the language of literary texts: A case study in social reading. Language and Literature 18, no. 3: 247–64. Wilkinson, I. A. G. & Son, E.H. (2012). A dialogic turn in research on learning and teaching to comprehend. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. IV (pp. 359–387). London: Routledge.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- 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 you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.