Abstract
AbstractIn the Netherlands, the quality of the reading curriculum is currently under debate because of disappointing results on national and international assessments of students’ reading skills and motivation. In a mixed-method study, we analyzed the content of Dutch textbooks for reading comprehension instruction (i.e., the implemented curriculum) and teachers’ evaluation and use of these books (i.e., the enacted curriculum). A materials analysis of reading comprehension lessons (N = 80) in eight textbooks for grades 4 and 5 was complemented with semi-structured teacher interviews (N = 29) and lesson observations (N = 11), with a focus on the quality of reading strategy and text structure instruction in the curriculum. Main findings are (1) a lack of alignment between lesson goals, theory, and assignments, (2) a strong focus on practicing strategies, (3) limited declarative knowledge about strategies and text structure, (4) little opportunities for self-regulated strategy application. The teachers that were interviewed mention similar problems, but still hardly deviate from the textbook’s content and pedagogical guidelines. We make recommendations to improve the quality of the curriculum.
Funder
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Speech and Hearing,Linguistics and Language,Education,Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
Reference84 articles.
1. Aarnoutse, C. A. J. (1990). Heeft onderwijs in leesvaardigheden of -strategieën effect [Does instruction in reading skills or strategies have an effect]? In M. Boekaerts & E. de Corte (Eds.), ORD Proceedings (pp. 173–185). ITS.
2. Aarnoutse, C. A. J. (2017). Onderwijs in begrijpend lezen [Reading comprehension instruction]. Orthopedagogiek: Onderzoek En Praktijk, 56(11–12), 269–291.
3. Aarnoutse, C. A. J., & Schellings, G. (2003). Een onderzoek naar de stimulering van leesstrategieën en leesmotivatie in probleemgestuurde leeromgevingen [A study on promoting reading strategies and reading motivation in problem-based learning environments]. Pedagogische Studiën, 80(1), 110–126.
4. Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R. M., Gooden, R., & Bentum, K. E. (2008). Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities based on the component model of reading: An alternative to the discrepancy model of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219407310838
5. Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.5.1
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献