Responding to the Literacy Load of Science in Monocultural Contexts:
Preparation Programs can Change Teacher Classroom Behavior
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33830/ijrse.v6i2.1704Keywords:
disciplinary literacy, standards, science, language, policy, changeAbstract
Existing research about literacy within different subjects suggests that specialist language styles add an extra load to student learning. This has resulted in changes to centralized policy mandates in various jurisdictions, eliciting a variety of responses, including enthusiasm, agreement, compliance, neglect, subversion, and/or resistance. This mixed method study investigated whether 55 secondary school teachers from a culturally homogenous coastal region of Eastern Australia recognized literacy issues within science and their responses to such issues. There were three main findings. Firstly, only one third of participating mainstream science teachers accepted direct responsibility for helping their students deal with the literacy load of science, but most participating teachers recognized the literacy nature of more than half of the activities suggested to them. Secondly, participants teaching classes at several grade levels, and female participants, reported using a greater range of literacy activities in their science classes, and more clearly content-related activities were mentioned more frequently. Thirdly, participants who had completed a postgraduate teacher preparation program were more likely to express confidence in dealing with the literacy load of science and acceptance of responsibility for doing so. Time spent on literacy in teacher preparation programs appears to influence positive mainstream science teacher attitudes and practices in response to the literacy load of science. Study findings challenge conventional views of teacher recalcitrance, and they support the maintenance of policy and teacher preparation practices that encourage science teachers to respond productively to student literacy needs that have been identified by on-going research.
References
ACARA. (2012). National Curriculum: Science - Foundation to Year 10 Curriculum (Version 1.1). Retrieved 20 November 2012 from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Science/Curriculum/F-10
ACARA. (2023). Literacy (Version 8.4). https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/literacy/
AITSL. (2017). Teacher Standards. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/standards
Barry, D., Pendergast, D., & Main, K. (2020). Teacher perspectives on the use of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers as part of their evaluation process. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 45(8), 1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2020v45n8.1
Bovey, W.H. & Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organisational change: The role of cognitive and affective processes. Leadership & Organisation Development Journal, 22(8), 372-382. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1108/EUM0000000006166
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic Analysis. American Psychological Association. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/13620-004
Comber, B. (2012). Mandated literacy assessment and the reorganisation of teachers’ work: Federal policy, local effects. Critical Studies in Education, 53(2), 119-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2012.672331
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3 ed.). Sage Publications. https://books.google.co.id/books/about/Research_Design.html?id=bttwENORfhgC&redir_esc=y
Davison, C., & Ollerhead, S. (2018). But I’m not an English teacher!: Disciplinary literacy in Australian science classrooms. In K. Tang & K. Danielsson (Eds.), Global developments in literacy research for science education (pp. 29-43). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69197-8_3
Derewianka, B. (2012). Knowledge about language in the Australian curriculum: English. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35(2), 127-146. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03651879
Dilkes, J., Cunningham, C., & Gray, J. (2014). The new Australian curriculum, teachers and change fatigue. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(11), 45-64. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n11.4
Edge, K., Reynolds, R., & O’Toole, J. M. (2014). Quality Teaching; ‘Classroom Pedagogical Alignment’; and why teachers teach as they do. International Journal of Pedagogies & Learning, 9(3), 211-227. https://www.academia.edu/89562634/Quality_teaching_classroom_ pedagogical_alignment_and_why_teachers_teach_as_they_do
Evans, J. D. (1974). Vocabulary problems in teaching science. School Science Review, 55(192), 585-590. https://sl.ut.ac.id/Vocabulary-problems-in-teaching-science
Fang, Z. (2024). Demystifying academic reading: A disciplinary approach to reading across content areas, Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003432258
Foss, D. H., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1996). Preservice elementary teachers' views of pedagogical and mathematical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(4), 429-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(95)00049-P
Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform (Vol. 204, Seminar Series). Centre for Strategic Education. https://doi.org/10.17323/1814-9545-2011-4-79-105
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (Eds.). (1992). Teacher development and educational change. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315870700
Glaeser, B., Leuer, M., & Grant, M. (2012). Changing teacher beliefs about promoting literacy in content area classes. Research in Higher Education Journal, 16(1), 1-8. https://digitalcommons.aabri.com/manuscripts/121117.pdf
HMSO. (1975). A language for life: Report of the committee of inquiry appointed by the Secretary of State for Education and Science under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Bullock. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/bullock/
Khoboli, B., Kibirige, I., & O’Toole, J. M. (2013). Teacher responses to policy implementation seen through a creative lens: Student-centred teaching in Lesotho science classes. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(1-2), 152-161. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC143292
Laufer, M. (2023). Fear, loathing and ideology: Why academics resist edtech. University World News, April 1, https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20230328141715682
Ledger, S., Ure, C., Burgess, M., & Morrison, C. (2020). Professional experience in Australian initial teacher education: An appraisal of policy and practice. Higher Education Studies, 10(4), 116-130. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v10n4p116
Levinson, R. (2001). Should controversial issues in science be taught through the humanities? School Science Review, 82(300), 97-101. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10157227/1/Levinson_ Teaching%20controversial%20issues%20in%20science_chapter_AAM.pdf
Lewis, S., Savage, G. C., & Holloway, J. (2020). Standards without standardisation? Assembling standards-based reforms in Australian and US schooling. Journal of Education Policy, 35(6), 737-764. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2019.1636140
Lively, B. A., & Pressey, S. L. (1923). A method for measuring the ‘vocabulary burden’ of textbooks. Educational Administration and Supervision, 9(9), 389-398. https://search.worldcat.org/title/A-method-for-measuring-the-%22vocabulary-Burden%22-of-textbooks/oclc/930774709
Martin, J. R. (2000/2012). Grammar meets Genre: Reflections on the ‘Sydney School’. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/229425914.pdf
O’Toole, J. M., Burke, R., & Absalom, D. (2012). Language, literacies and learning. Boraga Academic. https://studentvip.com.au/index.php/books/9781741309522
O’Toole, J. M., & Laugesen, R. (2011). Developing specialist language styles: Research and application. Boraga Academic. https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Laurence-J-OToole-2163265582
Philipp-Muller, A., Lee, S.W.S. & Petty, R.E. (2022). Why are people anti-science, and what can we do about it? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(30). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2120755119
Píšová, M. (2013). Teacher professional socialisation: Objective determinants Orbis scholae, 7(2), 67-80. https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2015.21
Poole, M. (1995). Beliefs and values in science education. Open University Press. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED390648
Reid, A. (2005). Rethinking national curriculum collaboration: Towards an Australian curriculum. Department of Education, Science and Training. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/115751
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40. https://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/upload/publications/38/pdf/ShanahanArticle061909.pdf
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2017). Disciplinary literacy: Just the FAQs. Educational Leadership, 74(5), 18-22. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315115748_Disciplinary_Literacy_Just_the_FAQs
Sprat, T. (1667/1958). History of the Royal Society of London for the Improving of Natural Knowledge (facsimile ed.). Washington University Press. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A61158.0001.001
Swales, J. M. (1985). Episodes in ESP: A source and reference book on the development of English for Science and Technology. Pergamon Press. https://archive.org/details/episodesinespsou0000unse
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.184.513swa
Webster, R. S., & Whelen, J. D. (2019). Understanding and interrogating professional standards. In R. Webster & J. Whelen (Eds.), Rethinking reflection and ethics for teachers (pp. 15-32). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9401-1_2
Xiao, X., & Wong, R. M. (2020). Vaccine hesitancy and perceived behavioural control: A meta-analysis. Vaccine, 5131-5138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.04.076
Zangmo, D., O’Toole, J. M., & Burke, R. (2013). Alignment and implementation: Process Writing in Bhutan. The Journal for ESL Teachers and Students, II, 75-81. https://openresearch.newcastle.edu.au/
Zimmerman, J. (2006). Why some teachers resist change and what Principals can do about it. NASSP Bulletin, 90(3), 238-249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636506291521
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Dr Brian Duckworth, Dr Suzanne MacQueen , Dr Mitch O'Toole
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Content Licensing, Copyright, and Permissions
1. License
International Journal of Research in STEM Education (IJRSE) adopts the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) as the optimal license for the publication, distribution, use, and reuse of scholarly works for non-commercial purposes.
The non-commercial use of the article will be governed by this license, which allows others to share and adapt the work provided proper attribution is given to the author(s) and the journal.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons License: CC BY-NC 4.0
2. Author's Warranties
The author warrants that the article is original, written by the stated author(s), has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright vested exclusively in the author, is free of any third-party rights, and that all necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author(s).
3. User Rights
The International Journal of Research in STEM Education aims to disseminate published articles as freely as possible. Under the Creative Commons license, users are permitted to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work for non-commercial purposes only, provided that proper attribution is given to the author(s) and this journal.
4. Rights of Authors
Authors retain the following rights:
- Copyright and proprietary rights related to the article, such as patent rights.
- The right to use the substance of the article in future works (e.g., lectures, books).
- The right to reproduce the article for personal purposes.
- The right to self-archive the article.
- The right to enter into separate, additional non-exclusive contractual arrangements for the distribution of the article’s published version (e.g., posting to an institutional repository or publishing it in a book), with acknowledgment of its initial publication in IJRSE.
If the author has a non-exclusive publishing contract with another publisher under a more restrictive license, the author still retains all rights to republish or distribute the work elsewhere, including commercially, as the author is not bound by the license conditions imposed on the journal.
5. Co-Authorship
If the article has multiple authors, the signatory of this agreement warrants that he/she has been authorized by all co-authors to sign this agreement on their behalf and agrees to inform all co-authors of the terms of this agreement.
6. Termination
This agreement may be terminated by either the author or IJRSE with two months’ notice if the other party has materially breached this agreement and failed to remedy such breach within one month after receiving written notice.
No breach or violation of this agreement will cause automatic termination or affect the license granted to IJRSE.
7. Royalties
This agreement entitles the author to no royalties or other fees. To the extent legally permissible, the author waives the right to collect royalties in respect of any use of the article by IJRSE or its sublicensees.
8. Miscellaneous
IJRSE will publish the article (or have it published) once the editorial process has been successfully completed.
The journal reserves the right to edit the article for style, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, referencing, and consistency as deemed appropriate.
The author acknowledges that the article will be made publicly accessible, and such access will be free of charge for readers.
