The Growth of Reading Groups as a Feminine Leisure Pursuit: Cultural Democracy or Dumbing Down?

Author(s):  
Anna Kiernan
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-106
Author(s):  
Russell Dewhurst

2000 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 265-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elaine R. Silliman ◽  
Ruth Bahr ◽  
Jill Beasman ◽  
Louise C. Wilkinson

Purpose: This article describes a study on the scaffolding of learning to read in a primary-level, continuous-progress, inclusion classroom that stressed a critical thinking curriculum and employed a collaborative teaching model. Two emergent reading groups were the focus of study—one group that was taught by a general educator and the other by a special educator. The primary purposes were to discern the teachers’ discourse patterns in order to define whether scaffolding sequences were more directive or more supportive and the degree to which these sequences represented differentiated instruction for children with a language learning disability (LLD). Method: Two students with an LLD and two younger, typically developing peers were videotaped in their emergent reading groups during an 8-week period. The distribution, types, and functions of teacher scaffolding sequences were examined. Results: Both team members primarily used directive scaffolding sequences, suggesting that the assistance provided to children emphasized only direct instruction (skill learning) and not analytical thinking concerning phonemegrapheme relationships (strategy learning). Distribution of scaffolding sequence types directed to the four students indicated that the two children with an LLD were receiving reading instruction that was undifferentiated from the two typically developing, younger children. Clinical Implications: In order for children with an LLD to benefit from inclusion, explicit, systematic, and intensive instruction in phonological awareness and spelling-sound relationships should be implemented within the context of multilevel instruction that balances skill- and strategy-based learning.


PMLA ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 116 (3) ◽  
pp. 631-637
Author(s):  
Susan J. Leonardi ◽  
Rebecca A. Pope

We felt the first stirrings of collaborative desire fifteen years ago. since then, we have published one book (and some miscellaneous pieces) together and have finished another. They are very different, though related, books, and while producing them we have had different, though related, thoughts about our collaborative authorship. One thing that collaboration teaches you is that there is no last word on anything. Someone looking over your shoulder or over your draft is going to find a better word or cross out your word entirely.A story of origins: We began to talk about writing a book together while trying to finish our dissertations. It was helpful to fantasize such a project—it presumed that the dissertations would get finished and that when they did, we would be alive and well and still writing. But the fantasy of collaboration addressed other anxieties, especially over the word original in the demand that the dissertation be a “significant and original contribution to scholarship.” Each of us knew how much her work depended on the scholarship she had read and how much the shape of her work had been affected by conversations, in reading groups or over coffee, with other graduate students, professors, friends, bartenders. Worse, in our theory classes we were being rewarded for pontificating about the demise of the very author we were working so hard to become. The notion of solitary authorship on which intellectual authority depends seemed a lie. At least in our cases. We certainly felt like frauds, but then as women in programs in which the students and professors were no longer exclusively but still predominantly male, we were perhaps predisposed to feeling like frauds. To write a book that had two signatures, we mused, would formally acknowledge that authors depend on other authors and would as well trouble the notions of original and originary. Intellectual honesty seemed to require the candid dismantling of the solitary author, of the original and originary genius.


Continuum ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 782-794 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Carlson ◽  
Briohny Walker
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document