Preparing student teachers to address complex learning and controversy with middle grades students

Ann Marie Smith, & Sean Lennon

doi:https://doi.org/

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2011, Vol. 7(2) 33-51

Preparing student teachers to address complex learning and controversy with middle grades students

Ann Marie Smith, & Sean Lennon

pp. 33 - 51 | Manu. Number: ijpe.2011.003

Published online: June 15, 2011 | Number of Views: 51 | Number of Download: 296

Save PDF

Abstract

This qualitative study explores pre-service teachers’ perceptions of teaching critical literacy through discussions of controversial issues. Personality questionnaires were given to six classes of pre-student teachers over three semesters in order to gauge interest in teaching methods that incorporate inquiry learning and critical literacy. The results of this study suggest that these pre-service teachers were generally unwilling to discussing controversial issues in their classes. Also some teachers did not necessarily believe that students are capable of directing their own learning. The authors of this study make recommendations for preparing teachers to think about critical literacy through discussions of controversial issues.

Keywords: Critical literacy, Preservice teacher education, complex learning, controversy

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Smith, A.M. & Lennon, S. (2011). Preparing student teachers to address complex learning and controversy with middle grades students . International Journal of Progressive Education, 7(2), 33-51.

Harvard
Smith, A. and Lennon, S. (2011). Preparing student teachers to address complex learning and controversy with middle grades students . International Journal of Progressive Education, 7(2), pp. 33-51.

Chicago 16th edition
Smith, Ann Marie and Sean Lennon (2011). "Preparing student teachers to address complex learning and controversy with middle grades students ". International Journal of Progressive Education 7 (2):33-51.

References

Allen, J. Moller, K. & Stroup, D. (2003). “Is this some kind of soap opera?: A tale of two readers across four literature discussion contexts. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 225-51. International Reading Association. [Google Scholar]
Almasi, J., Palmer, B., Garas, K., Cho, W., Shanahan, L., & Augustino, A. (2004). A Longitudinal investigation of the influence of peer discussion of text on Reading development in grades K-3. Final report submitted to the Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. [Google Scholar]
Almasi, J., O’Flahavan, J., & Arya, P. (2001). A comparative analysis of student and teacher development in more and less proficient discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 96-134. [Google Scholar]
Apple, M. (2004) Ideology and curriculum,3rd ed. New York: Taylor & Francis. Avery, P. (2004). Social studies teacher education in an era of globalization. In S. Adler (ed.) Critical issues in social studies teacher education (pp. 37-57). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. [Google Scholar]
Applebee, A., 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, 685-730. [Google Scholar]
Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies. (2002) Nashville, TN: Glenmary Research Center. CD Rom. [Google Scholar]
Byford, J., Lennon, S. & Russell, W. (2009). Teaching controversial issues in social studies: A Research study of high school teachers. Clearing House, 82 (4),165-70. [Google Scholar]
Carlson, D., & Schramm-Pate, L. (2005). Risky Business: Teaching about the confederate flag controversy in a South Carolina high school. In Eds. L. Weis & M. Fine. Beyond Silenced voices: Class, race and gender in united states schools (pp 217-231). New York: SUNY Press. [Google Scholar]
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). The Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. [Google Scholar]
Cornbleth, C. (2001). Climates of constraint/restraint of teachers and teaching. In W. Stanley (Ed). Social studies research for the 21st century (pp. 73-95). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. [Google Scholar]
Evans, P. (2002). Fifth graders’ perceptions on how they experience literature Discussion groups. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 46-49, [Google Scholar]
Finn, P. (1999). Literacy with an attitude: Educating working-class children in their own self-interest. Albany: SUNY. [Google Scholar]
Giroux, H. (2001). Theory and Resistance in Education: Towards a pedagogy for the opposition. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. [Google Scholar]
Hess, D. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The Democratic power of discussion. New York:Routledge. [Google Scholar]
Kelly, U. (1997). Schooling desire: Literacy, cultural politics, and pedagogy. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
Kincheloe, J. (2004). Critical pedagogy. New York: Peter Lang. [Google Scholar]
Lalik, R. & Oliver, K. (2007). Differences and tensions in implementing a pedagogy of critical literacy with adolescent girls. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1).46-70. [Google Scholar]
Lambeth, D. & Smith, A. (2011). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of culturally responsive teacher preparation in the 21st century. Paper/poster presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting, New Orleans. [Google Scholar]
Levitt, G., & Longstreet, W. (1993). Controversy and the teaching of authentic civic values. Social Studies, 84 (4), 142-47. [Google Scholar]
Lewis, C. (1998). Literary interpretation as a social act. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 42, 168-177. [Google Scholar]
Lipman, P. (2004). High stakes education. New York: Routledge Farmer. McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of Standardized testing. New York: RoutledgeFarmer. [Google Scholar]
Pescatore, C. (2008). Current events as empowering literacy: For English and social Studies teachers. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51 (4), 326-339. [Google Scholar]
Rosenblatt, L. (1994). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL.: Southern Illinois Press. [Google Scholar]
Rosenblatt, L. (1995). Literature as exploration. New York: MLA. [Google Scholar]
Santora, E. (2001). Interrogating privilege, plurality and possibilities in a multicultural society. In W. Stanley (Ed). Social studies research for the 21st century (pp. 149-171). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. [Google Scholar]
Smith, A. (2006). Negotiating control and protecting the private: Accountability, History teachers, and the Virginia Standards of Learning. In SG Grant (Ed.) Measuring history (pp.221-247). Greenwich, CT: Information Age State of Georgia labor profile. http://explorer.dol.state.ga.us. Retrieved April 19, 2010. [Google Scholar]
Street, B. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy development, ethnography, and education. New York: Addison Wesley. Publishing. [Google Scholar]
Stringer, E. (2008). Action research in education, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. USDA economic research services. 2008 Count-level poverty rates. Retrieved April 19, 2010 [Google Scholar]
Whitson, J. (2004). What social studies teachers need to know. In W. Stanley (Ed). Social studies research for the 21st century (pp. 9-35). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. [Google Scholar]
Wilson, E., et al. Teachers’ perspectives on incorporating current controversial issues into the social Studies curriculum. The International Social Studies Forum, 2 (1). 31-45. [Google Scholar]
Winston, K. & Ross, E. (2001). In search of the social studies curriculum: Standardization, diversity and a conflict of appearances. In W. Stanley (Ed). Social studies research for the 21st century (pp. 39-71). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. [Google Scholar]
Young, J. (2000). Boy talk: Critical literacy and masculinities. Reading Research Quarterly, 35. 312-337. [Google Scholar]

Volume 7 Issue 2

June 2011

All Articles