Responding to the literacy load of science in monocultural contexts:

Preparation programs can change teacher classroom behavior

Authors

  • Brian Duckworth University of Newcastle, Australia
  • Suzanne MacQueen University of Newcastle, Australia
  • Mitch O'Toole University of Newcastle, Australia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33830/ijrse.v6i2.1704

Keywords:

disciplinary literacy, standards, science, language, policy, change

Abstract

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.

Author Biography

Mitch O'Toole, University of Newcastle, Australia

ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0648-9233

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.

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.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic Analysis. American Psychological Association.

Comber, B. (2012). Mandated literacy assessment and the reorganisation of teachers’ work: Federal policy, local effects. Critical Studies in Education, 53(2), 119-136. DOI: 10.1080/17508487.2012.672331

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3 ed.). Sage Publications.

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.

Derewianka, B. (2012). Knowledge about language in the Australian curriculum: English. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35(2), 127-146.

Dilkes, J., Cunningham, C., & Gray, J. (2014). The new Australian curriculum, teachers and change fatigue. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(11), 45-64.

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.

Evans, J. D. (1974). Vocabulary problems in teaching science. School Science Review, 55(192), 585-590.

Fang, Z. (2024). Demystifying academic reading: A disciplinary approach to reading across content areas, Routledge.

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.

Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform (Vol. 204, Seminar Series). Centre for Strategic Education.

Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (Eds.). (1992). Teacher development and educational change. Routledge.

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.

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.

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.

Levinson, R. (2001). Should controversial issues in science be taught through the humanities? School Science Review, 82(300), 97-101.

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.

Lively, B. A., & Pressey, S. L. (1923). A method for measuring the ‘vocabulary burden’ of textbooks. Educational Administration and Supervision, 9(9), 389-398.

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.

O’Toole, J. M., & Laugesen, R. (2011). Developing specialist language styles: Research and application. Boraga Academic.

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) DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2120755119

Píšová, M. (2013). Teacher professional socialisation: Objective determinants Orbis scholae, 7(2), 67-80.

Poole, M. (1995). Beliefs and values in science education. Open University Press.

Reid, A. (2005). Rethinking national curriculum collaboration: Towards an Australian curriculum. Department of Education, Science and Training.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2017). Disciplinary literacy: Just the FAQs. Educational Leadership, 74(5), 18-22.

Sprat, T. (1667/1958). History of the Royal Society of London for the Improving of Natural Knowledge (facsimile ed.). Washington University Press.

Swales, J. M. (1985). Episodes in ESP: A source and reference book on the development of English for Science and Technology. Pergamon Press.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.

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.

Xiao, X., & Wong, R. M. (2020). Vaccine hesitancy and perceived behavioural control: A meta-analysis. Vaccine, 5131-5138. DOI: 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.

Zimmerman, J. (2006). Why some teachers resist change and what Principals can do about it. NASSP Bulletin, 90(3), 238-249. DOI: 10.1177/0192636506291521

Downloads

Published

2024-11-12

How to Cite

Duckworth, B. . ., MacQueen , S. ., & O’Toole, J. M. (2024). Responding to the literacy load of science in monocultural contexts: : Preparation programs can change teacher classroom behavior. International Journal of Research in STEM Education, 6(2), 24–36. https://doi.org/10.33830/ijrse.v6i2.1704

Issue

Section

Research Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Obs.: This plugin requires at least one statistics/report plugin to be enabled. If your statistics plugins provide more than one metric then please also select a main metric on the admin's site settings page and/or on the journal manager's settings pages.