MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2531645058

Introduction to "Writer Identity and the Teaching and Learning of Writing"

2016· book-chapter· en· W2531645058 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Teresa Cremin, Terry Locke

Notice bibliographique

RevueOpen Research Online (The Open University) · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueWriting and Handwriting Education
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIdentity (music)PedagogyMathematics educationPsychologySociologyArtAesthetics
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In the light of increasing international interest in teachers’ and students’ literate identities and practices, this book addresses the under-researched area of teachers’ and students’ writer identities and in so doing seeks to advance the field. The volume is premised upon two key assertions, namely that writer identity matters and needs recognition and development in educational contexts, and that young people’s writer identities are influenced by the ways in which their teachers identify as writers. It brings together new empirical studies and scholarly reviews on writer identity and the teaching and learning of writing from researchers working in Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, the UK and the USA. The volume explores what it means to identify as a writer, the issues which surround the concept of ‘being a writer’, and the consequences which arise when teachers and students do or do not identify as writers. Several contributors also conceive of and examine writing as a significant form of identity work. 
\n
\nIt is only relatively recently that an identity lens has been employed by school-focused writing researchers such that teachers’ and students’ writer identity enactments have been studied in classrooms or professional learning contexts (e.g. McKinney and Giorgis, 2009; Locke et al, 2011; Cremin and Baker, 2010; 2014; Ryan, 2014). Teachers in many countries are expected to model writing and demonstrate their proficiency as writers, even though modelling certain techniques and strategies is a far cry from modelling being a writer in the classroom. Enacting the dual roles of teacher and writer is potentially problematic in school if, as research indicates, practitioners lack self-assurance and positive writing identities (e.g. Luce Kapler et al., 2001; Gannon and Davies, 2007; Cremin and Oliver, 2016). It is equally problematic if teachers are unsure about what it might mean to model a writer identity. 
\n
\nSuch issues are compounded by the fact that historically in the high-school context many teachers report being drawn to teach English by a love of reading not writing, and whilst many associate reading with pleasure and satisfaction, few view writing in the same way (Peel, 2000; Gannon and Davies, 2007). In their Australian study, Gannon and Davies (2007) found that a love of literature or an inspirational English teacher prompted most of the respondents to teach the subject, not an interest in writing. Canadian research in the elementary phase also reveals that reading, not writing, forms the backbone of teachers’ literacy experiences and that this impacts upon their classroom practice where reading is profiled over composition (Yeo, 2007). In addition there has been a growing call for teachers of all disciplinary areas to view themselves as teachers of writing (Shanahan and Shanahan, 2008, Grimberg and Hand, 2009). However, there is widespread recognition that such teachers are reluctant to assume the mantle of either teacher of writing or disciplinary writer (Carney and Indrisano, 2013; Locke and Johnston, 2016). Alongside this it is argued that performativity discourses have distorted professional understanding of the nature and purpose of composition (Cremin Myhill, 2012; Locke, 2013).
\n
\nA recent systematic review of research into teachers as writers (from 1990-2015) underscores these difficulties. It suggests there are multiple difficulties and tensions including practitioners’ low self-assurance as writers, adverse writing histories, and limited conceptions of writing and being a writer, such that there is a genuine challenge in composing and enacting the positions of teacher and writer in the classroom (Cremin and Oliver, 2016).

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,015
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Communication savante
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 enseignants0,961
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0150,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0020,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,101
Tête enseignante GPT0,416
Écart entre enseignants0,314 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

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

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOpen Research Online (The Open University)Même sujetWriting and Handwriting EducationTravaux en français237 207