RM Winter 2016 FLIP

Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., &Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). The handbook of research on student engagement . New York, NY: Springer Science.

The “Silent Seminar” had students read a content-area article before responding to the teachers’ prompt and their classmates’ responses. The “Musical Think-Pair-Share” allowed students to read and write content-area texts and then share those texts with both their partner and entire class. Finally, the “Kahoot as an Anticipation Guide” activated students’ background knowledge by their responding to prompts first in writing and then by sharing, so they were prepared to read a content-area text. The commonality that cuts across these three activities is that technology is used to spur students’ responses, and the way students responded was specific to the content area while the skill could transfer to other content-areas and be applied to students’ personal and professional lives. In these ways, the activities presented here each were uniquely designed to support students engage and develop their disciplinary literacy skills. Through these activities, and the skills students utilized were transferable to their academic, professional, and personal lives. Conclusion As the calls for teaching disciplinary literacy in the content areas continue to get louder and louder, teachers need to use the technology in their schools – whether they work in a 1:1 school where all students are provided technology, only have access to computer carts, or are limited to a projector and laptop – in ways that develops students’ reading and communicating abilities. As they plan these activities, teachers need to be dually aware that the skills they are teaching need not only be specific to their content area but also transferable. It is this “transfer of skills” that teachers must consider and emphasize in their instruction as they work towards preparing all students for academic and career success. References Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2011). Student engagement with science in early adolescence: The contribution of enjoyment to students’continuing interest in learning about science. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 36 (1), 4-12.

Cook, K. L., & Dinkins, E. G. (2015). Building Disciplinary Literacy through Popular Fiction. Electronic Journal of Science Education , 19 (3). 1-24.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). The right start: Creating a strong foundation for the teaching career. Kappan , 94 (3), 8-13.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wilhoit, G., & Pittenger, L. (2014). Accountability for college and career readiness: Developing a new paradigm. Education Policy Analysis Archives , 22(86), 1-34. Duke, N. K. (2013). Transforming Students’Literacy Lives through Reading and Writing for Real-World Purposes. In S. Szabo, L. Martin, T. Morrison, L. Haas, & L. Garza-Garcia (Eds.), Literacy is Transformative (39-44). Louisville, KY: Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers.

Reading Matters Technology Matters

Elmore, R. F. (2007). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Fang, Z. (2012). Language correlates of disciplinary literacy. Topics in Language Disorders , 32 (1), 19-34.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2014). Close reading as an intervention for struggling middle school readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 57 (5), 367-376.

Gallagher, K. (2009). Readicide: How schools are killing reading and what you can do about it . Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education , 9 (1), 60-70.

Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions . University of Chicago press.

Maclellan, E. (2008). The significance of motivation in student-centred learning: a reflective case study. Teaching in Higher Education , 13 (4), 411-421.

Allington, R. L. (2014). Reading Moves: What Not to Do. Educational Leadership , 72 (2), 16-21.

Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (1997) The fall and rise of standards-based education: A National Association of School Boards of Education (NASBE) issues in brief. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. McClanahan, B., Williams, K., Kennedy, E., & Tate, S. (2012). A breakthrough for Josh: How use of an iPad facilitated reading improvement. TechTrends , 56 (3), 20-28.

Barnett, J. E., & Francis, A. L. (2012). Using higher order thinking questions to foster critical thinking: a classroom study. Educational Psychology , 32 (2), 201-211.

Boyles , N. ( 2013 ). Closing in on close reading . Educational Leadership , 70 ( 4 ), 36-41 .

McKenna, M.C., & Robinson, R.D. (1990). Content literacy: A definition and implications. Journal of Reading , 34 , 184–186.

Brown, T., McNamara, O., Hanley, U., & Jones, L. (1999). Primary student teachers’ understanding of mathematics and its teaching. British Educational Research Journal , 25 (3), 299-322.

Ming, K. (2012). 10 Content-Area Literacy Strategies for Art, Mathematics, Music, and Physical Education. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas , 85 (6), 213-220. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Too Cool for School? NoWay! Using the TPACK Framework: You Can Have Your Hot Tools and Teach with Them, Too. Learning & Leading with Technology , 36 (7), 14-18.

Botzakis, S., Burns, L. D., & Hall, L. A. (2014). Literacy reform and common core state standards: Recycling the autonomous model. Language Arts , 91 (4), 223.

Certo, J. L. (2011). Social skills and leadership abilities among children in small- group literature discussions. Journal of Research in Childhood Education , 25 (1), 62-81.

| 64 | Reading Matters | Volume 16 • Winter 2016 | scira.org

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS