M: Cyndie, you've been doing research on disciplinary literacy for about 20 years now.
In that time, you've probably been asked just about everything possible.
What question comes up most often these days?
W: That's easy. We're doing better convincing teachers that disciplinary literacy is worth teaching,
but they still are hesitant about their students' reactions.
A teacher said to me recently, "I have enough trouble getting my kids to read a textbook chapter. How would I ever motivate them to read in a disciplinary way?"
M: Is that a real question or is it just a mask for teacher resistance?
W: I think it's a real question, and in fact, it's also our biggest problem, because many teachers still don't understand the distinctions between content area reading and disciplinary literacy.
M: What is disciplinary literacy anyway? You said that's different.
W: Disciplinary literacy doesn't promise to make someone a better student.
It invites students to join the disciplinary field itself.
It's a kind of invitation to join a club.
M: Does it mean it invites students to join the "history club" by reading like a historian or the "science club" by reading like a scientist.
W: Right, but it goes beyond that. It says, "We want you to join us. We want to share with you our cognitive secrets, our way of thinking about the world, and how we solve problems.
We want to count you as one of us." In doing that, it both holds out the promise of affiliation, connecting with others is a big motivator,
and the promise of greater competency with challenging tasks -- not competency in being a kid or a student,
but competency in being successful with the kinds of things that adults do.
M: What about assessment? How do we test disciplinary literacy?
W: There aren't any standardized disciplinary reading or writing tests yet,
but one can easily imagine how classroom assessments could change in the future as instruction becomes more disciplinary in focus.
M: Past assessments in history, literature, or science have aimed to find out if students had mastered particular information.
Questions about content would certainly still have a place in disciplinary literacy since knowledge matters in disciplinary literacy too.
But what would a more disciplinary assessment look like?
W: I think a more disciplinary assessment would seek to find out whether students are interpreting such information in a sophisticated way according to the traditions of that discipline.
For example, a disciplinary test in history might ask not only what we know about a historical event,
but how we know about it -- students would be questioned about the source of the information, the reliability of the source, and how the information matches with information from other sources.
In cases where the information is contradictory, the assessment might ask students to determine whose account was more credible, requiring students to weigh evidence using the same kinds of criteria that historians use.
M: Uhmm. That sounds interesting.
W: Or a literature assessment might ask students to engage in deeper interpretation than in the past.
Instead of asking about the theme of a story, for example, an assessment might ask students to determine alternative themes and to decide --
based on text evidence -- which one the author seemed most sympathetic to.
In other words, it would ask the student to participate in the reading more as a literary critic than a student.
M: How should we prepare teachers to teach disciplinary literacy in teacher training institutions?
W: So far, teacher training institutions haven't done a very good job of helping subject matter teachers understand the discourse practices of their disciplines;
so those practices often remain implicit, untaught.
M: I agree with that. But have you seen any good examples?
W: Sure, there are some examples of programs that do make disciplinary literacy practices explicit.
The best of these programmes, in my opinion,
are the result of literacy and disciplinary experts collaborating to determine what these practices are and then engaging students in them.
This is the end of the second interview.
Questions 6 to 10 are based on what you have just heard.
6. According to the woman, what is the biggest problem in teaching disciplinary literacy?
7. What does disciplinary literacy really mean?
8. What would a more disciplinary assessment ask students to do?
9. Which is the best practice in teacher training institutions to promote disciplinary literacy teaching?
10. What is the purpose of the interview?
男：辛蒂，到現(xiàn)在為止，你已經(jīng)研究學(xué)科素養(yǎng)大概20年了。
在這段時間里，你可能被問到各種可能問到的問題。
這些天里，哪個問題是最常問的？
女：這很容易。我們在說服老師“學(xué)科素養(yǎng)是很值得教的”這一點上做得更好了，
但他們依然對學(xué)生的反應(yīng)持猶豫的態(tài)度。
最近，有一個老師和我說：“我很難讓我的學(xué)生們閱讀教材的一個章節(jié)。我怎么用學(xué)科的方式來激勵他們呢？”
男：這是一個真實的問題還是教師抗拒的掩飾？
女：我認(rèn)為這是一個真實的問題，事實上，這也是我們最大的問題所在，因為許多老師仍然不明白內(nèi)容區(qū)域閱讀和學(xué)科素養(yǎng)的區(qū)別。
男：那什么是學(xué)科素養(yǎng)？你說那是不同的。
女：學(xué)科素養(yǎng)不會保證讓一個人成為更好的學(xué)生。
它邀請學(xué)生加入學(xué)科領(lǐng)域。
它是一種加入俱樂部的邀請函。
男：這是否意味著通過像歷史學(xué)家一樣閱讀來邀請學(xué)生加入“歷史俱樂部”，或是通過像科學(xué)家一樣閱讀來邀請學(xué)生加入“科學(xué)俱樂部”。
女：是的，但它不止這些。它表示：“我們想讓你加入我們。我們想與你分享我們的認(rèn)知秘密、我們是如何看待這個世界以及如何解決問題的。
我們想把你算作我們的一員。”這樣做的話，它會遵守入會的承諾，與別人聯(lián)系正是一個很大的動力，
而且會遵守承諾，讓你擁有更強(qiáng)的能力來應(yīng)對具有挑戰(zhàn)性的任務(wù)——不是作為一個孩子或?qū)W生的能力，
而是能夠成功應(yīng)對成年人所做事情的能力。
男：那評估呢？我們?nèi)绾螠y試學(xué)科素養(yǎng)呢？
女：目前還沒有任何學(xué)科閱讀或?qū)懽鞯臉?biāo)準(zhǔn)化測試，
但你很容易就能想象得到，隨著教學(xué)更加關(guān)注學(xué)科，課堂評估在未來會發(fā)生怎樣的改變。
男：過去對歷史、文學(xué)或科學(xué)的評估都致力于了解學(xué)生是否掌握了某個具體的信息。
關(guān)于內(nèi)容的問題一定依然在學(xué)科素養(yǎng)里留有一席之地，因為知識在學(xué)科素養(yǎng)里也很重要。
但一個更側(cè)重于學(xué)科的評估是什么樣子的？
女：我認(rèn)為一個更側(cè)重于學(xué)科的評估會考查學(xué)生是否能根據(jù)該學(xué)科的傳統(tǒng)，用更深刻的方法解釋這些信息。
比如，一個歷史學(xué)科測試可能不單單會問“我們知道一個歷史事件的哪些知識”，
還會問我們是怎么知道的——學(xué)生會被問到信息的來源和可靠性，以及這個信息是如何與其他來源的信息相匹配的。
如果信息是矛盾的，評估會讓學(xué)生判斷哪個描述是更為可信的，這要求學(xué)生用歷史學(xué)家使用的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來權(quán)衡證據(jù)。
男：嗯。聽起來很有趣。
女：一個文學(xué)評估可能會讓學(xué)生做出比過去更為深刻的解讀。
例如，評估不會問故事的主題，而會讓學(xué)生從中選擇一個主題——
基于文章中的證據(jù)——哪一個是作者最為贊同的。
換句話說，它會讓學(xué)生從文學(xué)評論家的角度來參與閱讀，而不是從學(xué)生的角度。
男：那我們?nèi)绾卧诮處熍嘤?xùn)機(jī)構(gòu)讓老師們教授學(xué)科素養(yǎng)呢？
女：到目前為止，教師培訓(xùn)機(jī)構(gòu)在幫助課程至上的老師懂得他們所授學(xué)科的授課實踐方面做得還不是很好；
因此，那些實踐經(jīng)常是含蓄且未經(jīng)訓(xùn)練的。
男：我同意這一點。但你見到過正面的例子嗎？
女：當(dāng)然，有一些項目確實讓學(xué)科素養(yǎng)實踐變得十分明確。
我認(rèn)為，這些項目的最好之處在于，
素養(yǎng)和學(xué)科的專家合作來決定這些實踐是什么，然后讓學(xué)生參與其中。
第二個訪談到此結(jié)束。
根據(jù)剛剛聽到的內(nèi)容，回答6至10題。
6.根據(jù)這位女士的說法，教授學(xué)科素養(yǎng)的最大問題是什么？
7.學(xué)科素養(yǎng)是什么意思？
8.一個更側(cè)重于學(xué)科的評估讓學(xué)生做什么？
9.在教師培訓(xùn)機(jī)構(gòu)里，促進(jìn)學(xué)科素養(yǎng)教學(xué)的最佳實踐是什么？
10.這個訪談的目的是什么？
用戶評論
昂之傳
打卡11.6