IL 3014
Theoretical Perspectives
in Language, Literacy, and Culture: I
Course Instructor / Class meetings on campusLinda Kucan
5113 WWPH
/ Room 5405 WWPH
1:00-5:00
Saturday meetings:
September 12 October 3
November 7 December 5
“ For us, a conceptual framework is an argument about why the topic one wishes to study matters, and why the means proposed to study it are appropriate and rigorous.”
Ravitch & Riggan, 2012, p.7
“Our work assumes that we must study community or everyday funds of knowledge and Discourse to understand how language and literacy are practiced and how content concepts are constructed in the multiple communities of practice that youth encounter.”
Moje et al. (2004, p. 42)
“The emerging field of the learning sciences is one that is interdisciplinary, drawing on multiple theoretical perspectives and research paradigms so as to build understanding of the nature and conditions of learning, cognition, and development.”
(Barab & Squire, 2004, p. 1)
Course Overview
This course is the first of a two-part course sequence that provides opportunities for you to investigate important theoretical perspectives informing research in language, literacy, and culture. Specifically, you will consider fundamental questions such as:
- How do theories shape the choice ofresearch questions and methodologies?
- Howdo theories provideframeworks for analyzing data?
Required Texts
BOOKS
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American
Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2014). “They say/I say”: The moves that matter in academic
writing (3rd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.
ARTICLES/CHAPTERS
Anderson, R. C. (2004). Role of the reader’s schema in comprehension, learning, and
memory. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th Ed.) (pp. 594-606). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. (Reprinted from Learning to read in American schools: Basal readers and content texts, pp. 243-257, by R. C. Anderson, J. Osborn, & R. J. Tierney , Eds., 1984, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum]
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.
Davydov, V. V. (1995). The influence of L. S. Vygotsky on education theory, research,
and practice. Educational Researcher, 24(3), 12-21.
Dole, J.A. Valencia, S. W., Greer, E. A., & Wardrop, J. L. (1991). Effects of two types of
prereading instruction on the comprehension of narrative and expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(2), 142-159.
Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. W.
(2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2055-2100.
Kucan, L. (2011). Approximating the practice of writing the dissertation literature
review. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50, 229-240.
Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, E. J., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004).
Working toward thid space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday of knowledge and Discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-70.
Peneul, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and
development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331-337.
Pichert, J. W., & Anderson, R. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 309-315.
Ravitch, S. H., & Riggan, M. (2012). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide
research. Los Angeles: Sage.
Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L, Feltovich, P.J., & Anderson, D. K. (2004). Cognitive flexibility
theory: Advanced knowledge in ill-structured domains. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th Ed.) (pp. 640-653). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. [Reprinted from Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society Proceedings, Cognitive Science Society, 1988)
Squire,K., Giovanetto, L., Devane, B., & Durga, S. (2005). Building a self-organizing
game-based learning environment. TechTrends, 49(5), 34-42, 74.
Thompson, I. (2013). The mediation of learning in the zone of proximal development
through a co-constructed writing activity. Research in the Teaching of English, 47(3), 247-276.
Course Readings
The course readings are organized into four sets.
The first set of readings provides an example of the process involved in developing a framework (Grossman et al., 2004), an example of how that framework is used to design and analyze a study (Kucan, 2011), and then an explanation of what a conceptual framework is and what it does (Ravitch & Riggan, 2012).
The second set of readings is introduced by an article by Anderson (2004) which describes schema theory. Subsequent articles in this set demonstrate how schema theory has influenced the design of research (Pichert & Anderson, 1977) as well as how the theory has subsequently been elaborated and expanded upon (Spiro, 2004; Moje et al., 2004).
The third set of readings considers traditional and current paradigms of research design, including traditional psychological experimentation (Dole et al., 1991) and design-based research (Barab & Squire, 2004; Peneul et al. 2011, Squire et al., 2005). The Dole et al. (1991) article also connects to the reading about schema theory.
The fourth set of readings focuses on the sociocultural theory of Lev Vygotsky (Davydov, 1995) and the application of that theory to a writing intervention (Thompson, 2013).
All of the readings described above were selected to enhance your understanding of theoretical perspectives and how those perspectives influence the design of research in language, literacy, and culture.
Course Assignments
- Participation in Online Discussion Forum:
- Initial Postings: 4 points each/ 20 points total
- Responses to peer posting: 2 points each/10 points total
- Explanation Papers: 5 points each/35points total
- Conceptual FrameworkPaper/Presentation: 35 points
Online Discussion Forum
The Course Schedule indicates when you will post to the Online Discussion Forum. Your postings should consist of your response to a reading in terms of identifying a key point or argument structure, or a connection or question that the reading evokes.
Explanation Papers
As indicated on the Course Schedule, you will compose 7 Explanation Papers. These are responses to specific questions related to the readings and should be double-spaced and no more than 2 pages.
Composing the Explanation Papers should provide you with experience in crafting explanations that are clear and precise. The process of composing these papers should also offer you opportunities to consolidate your understanding of important concepts.
Conceptual Framework Presentation/Paper
The Conceptual Framework Presentation is a set of no more than 20 PowerPoint slides providing the outline of your Conceptual Framework Paper with relevant key points. Preparing the PowerPoint is a way to scaffold your composing of the Conceptual Framework Paper, which is a 10-page double-spaced paper explaining how a specific conceptual framework informs the design of research related to your problem of practice.
Course Policies
Grading
A+ = 99-100 points A = 94-98 points A- = 90-93 points
B+ = 88-89 pointsB = 84-87 pointsB- = 80-83 points
C+ = 78-79 pointsC = 74-77 pointsC- = 70-73 points
Below 70 = failure
Late assignment policy: The nature and pace of this course requires that you do not fall behind in assignments. If an extension is needed for an assignment, this must be arranged before the due date and will be granted for only the most extenuating of circumstances.
If you do not contact the course instructor about submitting an assignment late and just turn it in late, then your grade will be lowered.
Revising assignments: If your work on an assignment is graded below 80% you may revise and resubmit it one time. Resubmissions must be submitted within 2 weeks of receiving the graded assignment. The revision must be submitted with the original submission. The highest grade you can receive on a resubmitted assignment is 80%.
NOTE: Assignments due the last two weeks of the course cannot be revised.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Academic integrity is a key component of professionalism. It is expected that all candidates uphold the principles of academic integrity in their work during this course as specified on the University of Pittsburgh Office of the Provost. These guidelines are available for download at:
Students who do not follow these guidelines may be subject to disciplinary action.
GRIEVANCE POLICY
The purpose of grievance procedures is to ensure the rights and responsibilities of faculty and students in their relationships with each other. The rights and responsibilities of faculty and students are described in the University’s Academic Integrity Guidelines at:
SPECIAL LEARNING NEEDS
Ifyou have a disability for which you are or may be requesting an accommodation, you are encouraged to contact both your instructor and Disability Resources and Services, 140 William Pitt Union, (412) 648-7890 [(412) 383-7355 for TTY], as early as possible in the term. DRS will verify your disability and determine reasonable accommodations for this course.
1