MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W115222

Reading Aloud: Integrating Science and Literature for All Students

2008· article· en· W115222 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lynda Delo

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Science Teacher · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésReading (process)Mathematics educationActive listeningReading aloudThink aloud protocolPsychologyReading comprehensionComprehensionRead aloudSubject (documents)Science educationPedagogyComputer scienceLinguisticsCommunicationUsability
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] When students read literature that connects science to their everyday lives, the science becomes more interesting and relevant, and in turn, students are motivated to gain a better understanding of the subject matter. Many resources are available to elementary teachers who wish to support science learning with literature. Unfortunately, somewhere between middle school and high school, the emphasis on using literature to teach science content--particularly the exercise of reading aloud--has all but disappeared. The practice of reading aloud is helpful because most students have higher listening comprehension than reading comprehension (Trelease 2006)--low-reading level students, English language learners, and auditory learners in particular tend to understand what they hear better than what they read. This article provides suggestions for including the practice of reading aloud in the high school science classroom. Engaging students If reading aloud to young students is so important for their academic development, then why stop in the sixth grade? In general, reading aloud to (and with) students is a good way to role model positive reading behavior, to introduce students to books they may not normally read, and to help create a positive attitude toward books and reading in general. In the science classroom, sharing even one well-chosen book a semester with students will support the subject matter being studied. This can be accomplished by simply reading a book out loud to students throughout the semester. Better yet, have students themselves actively participate--provide each student with a copy of the book if you have a classroom set, or pass around your copy, and encourage students to read aloud and follow along. Dialogic reading in particular requires students to fully engage with the text by creating an interaction between you, the student, and the book. In dialogic reading, you are responsible for asking open-ended questions while students read aloud. For example, ask students: What do you think is going to happen next? or Why do you think the character did that? In my classes, I first ask a student with weak comprehension skills what he or she remembers; then, I direct questions to additional students until the main points of the text have been covered. When students are asked to summarize or retell text, they are challenged to digest information and re-form it in their own words. Students can also retell text by summarizing parts of a book in their journals, taking an end-of-the-book quiz, or drawing parts of a book as a series of pictures with or without words. (See Figure 2, p. 36 for more reading-related activities.) When incorporating reading aloud in the classroom, keep in mind that it should always be voluntary; allow students to opt out of reading aloud so that they do not feel threatened by it. During the activity, call on everyone in the class, but give each student the choice of reading an entire section (e.g., paragraph or page) aloud, just reading the first few words of a chapter (to demonstrate they are following along), or simply pointing to the appropriate place in the book. Surprisingly, I have found that many students with weak reading skills choose to read out loud. When struggling students learn how to read, they want to share their accomplishment with their peers. (Note: Classroom expectations should ensure students are respectful of others at all times. Do not tolerate any laughing or inappropriate comments while a student is reading aloud.) Including all genres When searching for reading material for your classroom, consider all genres (Figure 1). Do not rule out fiction--many good informational fiction books are available. For instance, Jean Craighead George and Gary Paulsen weave fictional stories around factual information and describe human interaction with the natural world (Figure 1). …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,018
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,047

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,024
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0080,009
Communication savante0,0180,019
Science ouverte0,0020,012
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0140,008

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,056
Tête enseignante GPT0,403
Écart entre enseignants0,347 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Science TeacherMême sujetEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentTravaux en français237 207