This case study explored how ten English as a First Language (Li) and ten English as a Second Language (L2) average Grade Three readers used Prior Knowledge and Non Prior Knowledge strategies to understand two Science texts and to answer three types of questions on the texts. The questions were classified according to the Pearson and Johnson taxonomy (1978). Answers to Textually Explicit questions could be found in the text; answers to Textually Implicit questions invited inferences from the text and answers to Scriptally Implicit questions required readers to use their own resources. Readers thought out loud or verbalized their thoughts after reading each sentence of the text, rated reading strategy statements, orally answered the three types of questions and then rated question-answering strategy statements. Patterns of strategies emerged from the Text and Questions protocols. Frequency counts of strategies were tallied and percentages were calculated. Analyses of the bar graphs showed that there were apparent differences between Li and L2 students in their use of Prior Knowledge and Non Prior Knowledge strategies when they read texts and answered questions on texts. It was felt that these differences indicated that Li readers seemed to be less “text-bound” or focussed on the text than L2 readers were. There were also apparent differences between the three types of questions and Li and L2 readers’ use of Prior Knowledge and Non Prior Knowledge strategies, providing evidence that the three types of questions elicited use of different types of strategies, and lending support to Wixson’s comment (1983) that the types of questions asked influenced the kinds of strategies used.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1999. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 79-85). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1999. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 79-85). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph.D.) - University of Queensland, 2007. / Includes bibliography.

No description available.

Learning to read is one of the most crucial life tasks that the young child must acquire whilst in primary school. In modern society, much of what one does is dependant on having the ability to read. While a great deal of research has focused on how children learn to read, relatively little attention has been paid to the literary quality of the material the children are exposed to whilst learning to read. In the past few years I have become increasingly concerned with the number of teachers who use material designed for teaching children to read without being aware of the literary quality of the material. While numerous teachers are aware of the issues surrounding the learning to read debate and use up to date materials to teach reading, far too many accept the material supplied by the school without questioning its literary merit and its impact upon the young reader. This piece of research is an attempt to evaluate the literary quality of two reading schemes currently in use in Cape Education Department schools. The chief conclusion of the research is that the schemes examined fall far short of the standards required for them to be considered good literature. Although the research is limited to two reading schemes, it is hoped that a teacher using other schemes could use the framework supplied in this study to examine the literary quality of the material she is using. Furthermore, the final chapter offers suggestions as to how to replace material of poor literary quality with books of a higher literary standard. On the basis of the above findings it is suggested that there is a need for individual teachers, schools, teacher training institutions and the Cape Education Department to examine the literary quality of reading schemes and books that are used in the process of teaching children to read. It is hoped that this piece of research will create a greater awareness amongst teachers of the literary quality of reading materials and prompt further research into such materials that will be of benefit to the central character in this study; the young child learning to read

This study investigated teachers' attitudes towards four specific strands isolated from views propounded in recent literature and research on the teaching of written composition. Much discussion in this field has focused on a "new paradigm" in that educators and researchers alike have come to view writing from a new perspective. Certain aspects of this new perspective on the teaching of writing appear to be shared by various sources in the literature. From this body of writing the researcher identified and isolated four distinct, though interwoven, shared values or "strands." These concerned Control on the part of the student-writer, Respect for what the student-writer has to say in his or her writing, Sharing the writing process, and Learning from writing by using writing as a tool for learning. A questionnaire was constructed to probe teachers' attitudes to each of these strands. Two sample populations, one with a whole-language and one with a non-integrated orientation towards teaching language, were identified. Twenty-five teachers from each population answered a three-part questionnaire. The main body of the survey probed attitudes to each of the strands. T-test results indicate that, while the whole-language oriented group reacted more favorably to all four strands in general, statistically this was highly significant in only two of the strands. That is, CONTROL on the part of the writer, and SHARING the writing process as in a community of writers appeared to be valued more highly amongst teachers with a whole-language orientation. This suggests that there may be a relationship between a whole-language orientation and these two aspects of teaching writing. / Education, Faculty of / Graduate

This case study explored how ten English as a First Language (Li) and ten English as a Second Language (L2) average Grade Three readers used Prior Knowledge and Non Prior Knowledge strategies to understand two Science texts and to answer three types of questions on the texts. The questions were classified according to the Pearson and Johnson taxonomy (1978). Answers to Textually Explicit questions could be found in the text; answers to Textually Implicit questions invited inferences from the text and answers to Scriptally Implicit questions required readers to use their own resources. Readers thought out loud or verbalized their thoughts after reading each sentence of the text, rated reading strategy statements, orally answered the three types of questions and then rated question-answering strategy statements. Patterns of strategies emerged from the Text and Questions protocols. Frequency counts of strategies were tallied and percentages were calculated. Analyses of the bar graphs showed that there were apparent differences between Li and L2 students in their use of Prior Knowledge and Non Prior Knowledge strategies when they read texts and answered questions on texts. It was felt that these differences indicated that Li readers seemed to be less “text-bound” or focussed on the text than L2 readers were. There were also apparent differences between the three types of questions and Li and L2 readers’ use of Prior Knowledge and Non Prior Knowledge strategies, providing evidence that the three types of questions elicited use of different types of strategies, and lending support to Wixson’s comment (1983) that the types of questions asked influenced the kinds of strategies used. / Education, Faculty of / Language and Literacy Education (LLED), Department of / Graduate

No description available.

No description available.