Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 18

Master of Teaching (Secondary) Research Proposal

LITERACY, TEXT, AND LITERACY STRATEGIES IN SECONDARY MATHEMATICS: CONCEPTIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS

Candidate: Miss Karen Choi Student ID Number: 21080301

Supervisor: Dr. Elaine Chapman

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................... !3 INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT................................................................................... !4 LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................................... !7 ! ! ! ! DIFFICULTIES IN DEFINITIONS OF LITERACY IN MATHEMATIC.....................!7 RESISTANCE AND THE NEED FOR BROADER DEFINITIONS.........................!8 LACK OF EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES AND COMMON LANGUAGE....................!10 NEED FOR RESEARCH....................................................................................... 11

STUDY AIMS AND RATIONALE..................................................................................... !12 METHOD..........................................................................................................................!13 ! ! ! ! ! ! RESEARCH APPROACH/INSTRUMENT..............................................................!13 PARTICIPANTS.....................................................................................................!14 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES....................................................................!14 DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES..........................................................................! 14 CONFORMITY TO STANDARDS FOR ETHICAL RESEARCH PRACTICE.........!15 PROPOSED TIMELINE.........................................................................................!15

REFERENCES.................................................................................................................!16

ABSTRACT
Broad denitions of literacy and text in the disciplinary areas have been suggested to positively affect content-area teachers willingness to integrate literacy instruction in their teaching as well as their perceptions of effective literacy strategies. However, secondary pre-service mathematics teachers conceptions of literacy, text, and literacy strategies have not yet been examined. The goals of this study will be to determine secondary pre-service mathematics teachers (i) denition of literacy in mathematics, (ii) denition of texts in mathematics, and (iii) knowledge of effective literacy strategies in mathematics. A web-based survey will be used to determine the conceptions of literacy, text, and literacy strategies in mathematics of forty (n=40) secondary mathematics pre-service teachers. Results will be analysed using a combination of inductive reading, coding, and ranking/scoring. The ndings of this study may have implications for future practices in teacher education, literacy instruction, and mathematics education.

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT


Literacy and the importance of literacy instruction within the curriculum areas of secondary schooling has long been touted. For the past twenty-ve years, reading experts and educational policymakers have pressed for greater attention to adolescent literacy (McConachie & Petrosky, 2010). Rasinski and Fawcett (2008) observed that the rising ood of expectations in school has led to an increased demand on the literacy skills of adolescents. As the importance of higher level skills rose, so did the nature and complexity of school texts. The signicance of literacy attainment on students academic performance is clearly acknowledged by the Australian Government which identied achievement of real, sustained improvements in the literacy skills of Australian children to better prepare them for their futures as a key priority (Commonwealth of Australia, 2005). To this end, a review of literacy practices in Australian schools was commissioned and in their report: ! ! ! The Committee recommends that literacy teaching continue throughout schooling (K-12) in all areas of the curriculum. Literacy must be the responsibility of all teachers across the curriculum ... (pg. 15)

Despite the consensus about the vital need to integrate literacy training with the teaching and learning of content-areas, secondary pre- and in- service teachers are often dismissive of efforts to incorporate practices that focus explicitly on literacy (Olsen & Truxaw, 2009; Moje, 2006; Hall, 2004). This is particularly true in the area of mathematics. Researchers have noted that mathematics teachers are often among the most skeptical of the value of reading and writing across the curriculum (Siebert & Draper, 2008). This skepticism is shared by pre-service mathematics teachers who cannot gure out why they have to take so many literacy courses (Johnson, Watson, Delahunty, McSwiggen, & Smith, 2011). Daisey and Shroyer (1993) comments that pre-service secondary teachers resist the ideas presented in contentarea literacy courses, they prioritise their specialisation elds and pay little attention to the role of reading and writing in those elds. This is supported by Lesley (2012) who noted that a number of secondary pre-service teachers share the belief that literacy instruction is irrelevant in their future content-area classroom. ! Historically, the reasons offered for the failure to infuse literacy learning in secondary schools ranged from explanations rooted in knowledge, beliefs, cultural values among teachers and students to the structures of secondary schools and the dominance of subject area norms (Moje, 2008). However, collaborations between content-area experts and literacy educators have led to newer understandings of the dichotomy between literacy learning and content-area learning. Draper, Smith, Hall, and Siebert (2005) described this purproted disjuncture between content-area instruction and literacy instruction as a dualism and posits that this separation is often paralleled by the equally disconnected ways that educators conceptualise literacy and learning. They further comment that literacy is often viewed as the ability to read and write 4

traditionally printed material whilst, in contrast, content knowledge is frequently conceptualised as an interrelated body of facts, concepts, and processes wherein literacy skills and abilities are incidental. This is claim is supported by researchers who attribute the lack of integration to the overemphasis on literacy in secondary content literacy (Moje, 2008) and messages about literacy that neglect, deemphasise, or misrepresent mathematics (Siebert & Draper, 2008). Moje (2008) proposes that recognising the distinct language, content foci, and disciplinary assumptions -in essence, the discourses - of disparate elds both creates challenges and opportunities for bridge building. This view concurs with Draper et. als (2005) claim that the literacy-content dualism is a false dichotomy that was generated from the ways and practice of conceiving literacy and content knowledge. They emphasised the need for a broader denition of literacy that encompasses many of the literacy acts that are a natural part of content-area learning, knowing and communicating. This idea of literacy instruction aimed to build an understanding of how knowledge is constructed within the discipline forms the core of disciplinary literacy, a concept built around the belief that denitions of literacy must be anchored in the specics of individual disciplines (McConachie, 2010). In their conception of disciplinary literacy in mathematics, Draper and Seibert (2008) urged a broader denition of what counts as text and literacy. They included in their denition of literacy a variety of activities in addition to reading and writing, such as speaking, listening, viewing, symbolising, and performing behaviours required to participate in the various activities associted with learning, knowing, and communicating. Text was broadly dened as anything that people use to create, convey, and negotiate meaning such as, but not limited to, diagrams, pictures, calculator readouts, manipulatives, equations, small group and whole class discussions, and conceptually orientated explanations and justications (pg. 242). ! In recent years, disciplinary literacy has garnered a great deal of attention both as a policy concern and as the focus of research (Brozo, Moorman, Meyer, Stewart, 2013; Dillon, OBrien, Sato, & Kelly, 2010). The embracement of disciplinary literacy and broader denitions meant that literacy became a natural part of every mathematics instruction, not something that has to be imported or infused. There has been recognition that a more complex understanding of the construct of literacy and text could effectively shift pre-service teachers literacy identity from one of resistance to advocacy (Spritler, 2012; Lesley, 2011). However, researchers are concerned that this strong focus on disciplinary literacy could lead to educators neglecting the address of generic literacy tools which are also necessary for content-area learning (Brozo et al, 2013; Buehl, 2011). As Moje (2008) comments, some generic strategies have shown potential for supporting readers in comprehending many different types of texts. Instead, the challenge for educators is to identify which strategies have merit in their subject area as well as develop their own knowledge of the roles text and literacy play in the disciplinary areas (Johnson, Delahunty, McSwiggen, & Smith, 2011). This has prompted a call for collaboration between literacy and content-area experts (Moje, 2008; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008; Alvermann & Marsh, 2009; Brozo et al., 2013). 5

Further research and collaborative efforts has resulted in newer models of content-area learning and literacy. Shanahan and Shanahan (2008) put forward a model of literacy development and the associated skills in the image of a pyramid. Basic literacy (decoding and knowledge of highfrequency words that underlie virtually all reading tasks) formed the base of their model. Above that was intermediate literacy (generic comprehension strategies, common word meanings, and basic uency), skills common to many tasks. Lastly, disciplinary literacy (skills specic to the disciplines) formed the top of the pyramid. The shared perspectives of Draper and Siebert (2004) culminated in a different model of of mathematics learning and literacy. They proposed a four-component (context, learner/reader, mathematics, text) model to demonstrate that mathematics learning and literacy are invariable intertwined in a mathematics classroom. Collaborative efforts have also precipitated further discussion about the need to identify effective strategies (Fisher & Frey, 2007) and establish common vocabulary (Draper, Broomhead, Jensen & Nokes, 2012; Friendland, McMillan & Prado Hill, 2011) in the eld. Evidently, the way in which educators dene literacy and text within their content-areas has signicant implications on both their willingness to incorporate literacy instruction (Draper et al., 2012; Spitler, 2012; Olson & Truxaw, 2009) and their perceptions of the effective literacy strategies (Johnson et al, 2011; Draper & Siebert, 2008; Moje, 2008) within the disciplinary areas. Given the magnitude of these effects, it is surprising that little attention has been given to examining content-area teachers denitions of literacy. This is especially true for mathematics pre-service teachers since little content-area literacy research has been done in the area of mathematics (Siebert & Draper, 2008) and research has focused more on in-service rather than pre-service teachers (Hall, 2005). The present study aims to ll an important gap in the growing literature on literacy across the curriculum. By examining the secondary preservice teachers conceptions of literacy, text, and literacy strategies, this study may inform teacher education and, in turn, support the teaching of literacy in mathematics.

LITERATURE REVIEW
In the past few years, there has been a multitude of published reports, articles, and ongoing updates proposing multifaceted approaches to improving adolescent literacy (McConachie & Petrosky, 2010). The complex nature of literacy and content-area literacy, along with the web of variables that are diverse and interdependent (Chauvin & Molina, 2012), creates challenges in summarising the literature. This literature review was mainly informed by the body of previous literature reviews on content-area literacy, although other relevant publications were included to develop certain themes. Major themes have emerged in this review that draws attention to the need to examine conceptions of literacy, text, and literacy strategies in mathematics.

Difculties in denitions of literacy in mathematics At rst glance, literacy would seem to be a term that everyone understands. However, literacy as a concept has proved both complex and dynamic, continuing to be interpreted and dened in a multiplicity of ways (UNESCO, 2006). In their Education for All Global Monitoring Report, UNESCO (2006) conducted an extensive review on the understandings of literacy and concluded that there are highly contested debates over the meaning and denition of the term literacy and how it is related to the broader notions of education and knowledge. They present four discrete understandings of literacy: literacy as an autonomous set of skills; literacy as applied, practiced, and situated; literacy as a learning process; and literacy as text. An interesting result of this review which has implication for pre-service teachers denition of literacy in mathematics relates to the concept of numeracy. UNESCO (2006) contents that numeracy - and the competencies it comprises - is usually understood either as supplement to the set of skills encompassed by literacy or as a component of literacy itself. The challenge presented by the different terminologies for literacy in mathematics was is also observed by Kilpatrick (2001). He exemplies this by referring to an earlier study where the study committee, charged with describing the context of what is meant by successful mathematics learning, face difculties due to the similarities of the terms such as mathematical literacy, numeracy, mastery of mathematics, and mathematical competence (Kilpatrick, Swafford, & Findell, 2001). In his review of relevant, sound, generalizable and convergent research studies on mathematical literacy, it was found that there is a need to develop both a more mature conception of literacy and a better grasp of how it is, and might be, achieved in school (pg. 113). Similar ndings were echoed by Yore, Pimm, and Tuan (2007) who argued that mathematical literacy involves being familiar with and a procient user of the relevant disciplinary discourse and practices. In their review of mathematical and scientic literacy, the authors noted the contention between numeracy and mathematical literacy but suggests that mathematics has nothing much to do with the way numeracy is widely deployed at school level, as a code-word for arithmetic. They comment on the potential for operational denitions of 7

mathematical literacy which is functional and prepares people to live, understand, and act critically in a modern, mathematised society (pg 574). Explorations of the denition of literacy in mathematics is further complicated by the the differences in conceptions of content-area literacy. Star, Strickland, and Hawkins (2008) investigated the construct content-area literacy in mathematics and noted a divide in the literature between content-area literacy and content-area literacy. Content-area literacy was associated to reading and writing activities embedded in content area courses such as keeping a mathematics journal, reading the textbook, or writing a paragraph explanation to problems. Conversely, content-area literacy was viewed as synonymous to mathematical literacy which held different but interrelated meanings. Analysis of the literature indicated that mathematics literacy mostly referred mathematical understanding but could also be interpreted as an appreciation or application of mathematics. The study concluded that both conceptions of content-area literacy presented issues and suggests that this disjuncture is unnecessary. Their view substantiates claims by other researchers who have commented on the false contentliteracy dualism (Moje, 2008; Draper et al., 2005). Star et al. (2008) proposed greater coordination between literacy educators and mathematics educators to generate a more balanced conceptualization of content area literacy which would, in turn, facilitate the integration of literacy in mathematics.

Resistance and the need for broader denitions Notions similar to that of Star et al.s (2008) reconceptualizing content-area literacy are echoed by researchers throughout the literature (Brozo et al., 2013; Spitler, 2012; Johnson et al., 2011; Moje, 2008; Draper & Siebert, 2008; Draper et al., 2005) These calls were mainly made in response to the prominent documentation of content area teachers resistance against integrating literacy in their curriculum areas. Draper and Siebert (2008) conducted a study on the how the messages available in the literature were framed and how they might be viewed by content area teachers, especially mathematics teachers. Prompted by the resistance of mathematics teachers to incorporate literacy instruction in their practices, the authors analysed a collection of content-area literacy advocacy, policy, and method texts. In their report, the authors noted that the perspective of mathematics teachers is particularly valuable since little research on literacy has been done in this discipline. They hypothesized that the assumptions and beliefs that have guided literacy efforts in certain carefully studied disciplines such as language arts and social studies may not be helpful in mathematics. This study revealed that messages available to content-area teachers about literacy neglect, deemphasize, or misrepresent mathematics and/or mathematics education. The authors assert that if literacy messages are to include rather than exclude mathematics teachers, they must be reformulated to include broader notions of text and literacy.

Comparable results for overcoming the resistant attitudes and beliefs of mathematics teachers about literacy learning has been reported in studies involving preservice teachers. An empirical study conducted by Lesley (2011) examined the literacy identities of preservice teachers using data obtained from undergraduate literacy narrative assignments. Through an analysis of preservice teachers Discourse models about reading, ve master models of what literacy looked like and meant to preservice teachers were formulated. The researcher asserts that preservice teachers literacy identities are forged through their previous experiences with literacy. These identities subsequently inuence their willingness to adopt new literacy methods in content area classes. Based on the master models formulated, she suggests that resistance to adopting new literacy methods may be caused by preservice teachers narrow denitions of literacy performance. Although this result coincides with the literature on teachers resistance and includes pre-service teachers from many different academic majors, the survey sample used was highly disproportionate. Of the 17 academic majors examined, 12 (including mathematics) had fewer than 6 participants. In fact, variation in the frequency of master models cited by participants was only observed in the ve larger samples of academic majors. This indicates a need for further empirical research involving mathematics preservice teachers.

Guided by earlier works on disciplinary literacy and the perceived content-literacy dualism, several studies have been conducted collaboratively by literacy experts and content-area experts. One such study presented by Draper, Broomhead, Jensen, and Nokes (2012) which utilizes data collected from the rst three years of an ongoing participatory action research (PAR) project involving both literacy and content-area teacher educators. The study aimed to develop shared understandings or theories related to literacy instruction in content-area classrooms and explore possible changes to instruction of preservice teachers. Participants in this study included a literacy expert who coordinated the group and 12 teacher educators from the various elds (biological sciences, music, physical education, etc), including one from mathematics. Meetings were held regularly to discuss literacy instruction in the disciplinary areas and data from dialogues, which occurred at these meetings, was recorded. Findings from this study showed that embracing broad notions of text and literacy are useful for making sense of disciplinary aims and pedagogy. Draper et al. (2012) also discussed the implication of their shared understandings and commented that converting existing literacy strategies to t the various disciplines was a big challenge since most instructional strategies were developed around print text. They conclude their report by acknowledging there was no evidence that changes made to teacher educators practice affected the practice of preservice teachers and invited future research on practices of preservice teachers. !

Lack of effective strategies and common language ! ! The difculty of converting literacy strategies effectively to suit different content areas may explain why a signicant body of research demonstrates that in- and preservice teachers doubt the efcacy of strategies offered by content literacy teachers and view them as ineffective for the demands of their curriculum (Alvermann & Moore, 1991; Sizer, 1984). In his review of the research into content area teachers attitudes and beliefs about the teaching of reading within their subject areas, Hall (2004) examined reasons that motivate pre- and in-service content area teachers. He argued that approaches to working with content area teachers on the topic of literacy has been limited and simply creating positive attitudes is insufcient. An examination of studies published in peer-reviewed journals between 1970 and 2003, focusing on pre- and inservice secondary teachers, yielded only nineteen studies which met the criteria. Besides the clear implications about the lack of empirical research in this area, Halls (2004) review also found that positive attitudes towards teaching reading did not necessarily mean that the quality of instruction was better in classrooms. He comments that neither in- nor pre- service teachers appears to be receiving instruction regarding effective strategies for increasing comprehension within their own subject area. Questions about the effectiveness of content area strategies have also been addressed by Alvermann and Swafford (1989). They cite Patberg (1979) who observed that there was a lack of empirical support for many of the reading strategies recommended in professional journals and content area method texts. Alvermann and Swafford (1989) conducted a review of the research literature to determine the extent of the research base for the literacy strategies and if there was support within the literature for strategies that teachers were frequently using. The effectiveness of thirteen literacy strategies were by examining 6 method texts and 112 studies published in journals, and reported nding that more studies found strategies to be effective (n=62) than ineffective (n=49). Closer examination of their ndings, however, reveal that only three of the thirteen strategies studied were associated to mathematic texts. Of these three, two were ineffective and only the structured overview strategy was found to be effective in mathematics for low and average ability readers. Despite the discovery of effective strategies for various abilities of readers in subjects such as social science and history, none of the recommended strategies proved effective in mathematics for low ability readers. This paucity of research-based evidence for integration of specic literacy strategies in mathematics instruction has also been revealed in a recent collaborative study by Friendland, McMillan and Prado Hill (2011). The researchers, one mathematician and two literacy educators, conducted a database search for peer-reviewed journal articles published between 1980 and 2009 that focus on the use of literacy strategies in middle and secondary mathematics classrooms. Their search yielded 63 possible articles for inclusion, of which only 6 were empirical studies. Application of further selection criteria reduced the number of included 10

articles to 24, leaving only 2 articles describing effective literacy strategies in mathematics. Although they acknowledge the apparent lack of research, Friedland at el. (2011) comments that there were numerous pertinent articles that they were aware of from their own readings that did not surface in the database search. They attribute this limitation of database searching to the differences in terminology used by those in the eld of literacy and those in the eld of mathematics. Similarities between Polyas (1945) problem-solving strategy and the Ogles (1996) K-W-L comprehension strategy was used to exemplify this. The authors surmised that mathematics and literacy educators need to develop a common understanding of terms and strategies. Similar ndings were reported by Johnson et al. (2011) who commented on the discovery of invisible strategies utilised in content-area teaching practices, but not explicitly identied as a literacy strategy, due to differences in terminology.

Need for research In a current review of the literature, Chauvin and Movina (2012) conducted searches of two bibliographic databases of the education literature and online search engines. They retrieved studies on secondary content-area literacy from these searches as well as from national centres and organisations. Their analysis resulted in the reconceptualization of literacy through an address of ve components: denitions; language use; the research; comprehension, vocabulary, and text complexity; and looking deeply at the disciplines. The report urged teachers to further examine the challenges in the different content-areas and reconceptualise their understandings of literacy in the disciplines. Additionally, the authors also remarks that because many teachers and instructional leaders are redesigning curriculum to meet the needs of students of the 21st century, they have an opportunity now to reconceptualise literacy across the curriculum. However, they cite Sheriden-Thoman (2007) who noted that little has been written about how (or whether) teacher educators communicate the concept of multiple literacies and the way it can used in content-area classrooms. These ndings are particularly relevant in the Western Australia context since schools are in a transitional period from the old Curriculum Framework to the new Australian Curriculum, which specically requires address of literacy across the curriculum and recognises literacy as an important aspect of mathematics (ACARA, 2010). In addition, major reforms on education in Western Australian to raise the bar on literacy have also been announced. These reforms include a minimum literacy assessment in year 10 from 2014 and a requirement for students to achieve an Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) or a minimum Certicate II in training programs to graduate from secondary school (Government of Western Australia, 2013). If literacy in secondary mathematics is to be successfully reconceptualized, an understanding of how secondary mathematics pre-service teachers currently perceive literacy, text, and literacy strategies in mathematics is important.

11

STUDY RATIONALE AND AIMS


The introduction of the Australian Curriculum has necessitated change to teaching practices and teacher education in Western Australia. In contrast to the old Curriculum Framework Learning Statements for Mathematics (School Curriculum and Standards Authority, 1998), the Australian Curriculum (2010) clearly identies literacy as a general capacity skill necessary for secondary school students. In addition, the new curriculum also states that literacy is an important aspect of mathematics and broadly denes literacy and text as listening to, reading, viewing, speaking, writing and creating oral, print visual, and digital texts, and using and modifying language for the different purposes in a range of contexts. From the literature review, it is clear that secondary pre-service teachers conception of literacy, texts, and literacy strategies in mathematics will have implications on their abilities to effectively implement the new curriculum. The major goals of the current study will be to determine secondary mathematics preservice teachers (i) denition literacy in mathematics, (ii) denition of texts in mathematics; and (iii) knowledge of effective literacy strategies in mathematics. To address the rst two goals, the study will obtain denitions provided by pre-service teachers on open-response items and categorise them using an inductive reading process and reading process. The survey will also include several yes/no items which will be scored and compared against the categorisations. To address the third goal, participants responses to several Likertscale questions will be scored and analysed by considering individual participants efcacies as well as whole population responses to individual strategies. This study will address three major questions: 1) How do secondary pre-service mathematics teachers dene literacy and text in mathematics? 2) What types of activities and/or texts are included in secondary pre-service mathematics teachers denition of literacy and text in mathematics? 3) Which strategies have been identied by secondary pre-service mathematics teachers as effective literacy strategies for mathematics teaching?

12

METHOD
Research approach / Instrument The major aim of this study is to examine the conceptions of literacy, text, and literacy strategies in secondary mathematics. To address this aim, a descriptive survey (Punch, 2009) will be utilised. Surveys have been part of the research base in content-area literacy for some years and are still viewed as the most pertinent instruments to determine the kinds of behaviours that pre-service teachers exhibit and to determine their attitudes and receptiveness to content area literacy instruction (Nourie & Lenski, 2012). Data on preservice teachers conceptions of literacy, text, and literacy strategies in mathematics will be collected using a self-made instrument. The development of a new measure was necessary since the two existing validated measures for content-area literacy focused on reading and would not provide sufcient data in answering the research questions. However, these two measures, The Mikulecky Behavioural Reading Attitude Measure (MBRAM) (Mikulecky, 1976) and A Scale to Measure Attitudes Towards Teaching Reading in Content Classrooms (Vaughn, 1977) will be modied and inform part of the new survey. The survey will comprise of three parts. In the rst section, open-ended questions about the denitions of literacy and text in mathematics will be asked. In both the explorations of denitions of literacy and text, a general open-ended question will be asked followed by a further probing question to clarify the response. Closed questions about the types of activities and texts associated to the participants conceptions of literacy and text will be asked in the second section. To avoid bias and advocacy of broader denitions, the rst section must be completed before this second is attempted (Gorard, 2008). By use of a web-based instrument, the requirement that participants respond to all questions in the rst section before moving on is easily controllable. The last section of the instrument asks questions about literacy strategies in mathematics. This will include a mix of Yes/No items relating to the participants knowledge of a strategy and 10-point Likert scale questions relating to the effectiveness of a particular strategy. Strategies and the terminologies for such strategies used in this section will be based on research on effective content-area literacy strategies in mathematics. As such, only the common names which they are known by in content-area literature and texts will be used and no explantation will be given in the instrument. Since the aim of these questions are to determine the participants knowledge of content-area literacy, results obtained will be valid.

13

Participants At least forty (n=40) pre-service secondary mathematics teachers teachers will participate in this study. Participants will be drawn from all four Western Australia universities offering initial teacher education courses. This is necessary since cohorts of mathematics pre-service secondary students are generally smaller than that of other disciplines. To avoid issues of attrition, all secondary school pre-service teachers that nominate mathematics as one of their teaching areas, regardless of whether as a major or minor subject, will be included in the study. The general section (participant details) of the survey will include items to address this. It is also acknowledged that, due to the different requirements across universities, participants knowledge of and exposure to content-area literacy may be dissimilar. A brief study of course requirements in two different universities has already found that content-area literacy courses while mandatory in one university, was optional in another. These differences in experience with content-area literacy course will also be included in survey items.

Data collection procedures In order to achieve a high return rate and ensure quality of data, the survey will be created on Qualtrics and distributed through email. In addition to distributing the survey link through university administrators, content-area methods instructors will also be requested to assist in the distribution of the survey. The researcher, university administrators, and content-area methods instructors will inform participants that participation in this study is entirely voluntarily. This information, along with specic instructions detailing the purpose of the study, how to complete the survey, and expected completion time will be detailed at the beginning of the survey.

Data analysis procedures Data from completed surveys will be analysed and categorised. Instead of deciding a priori (Siebert & Draper, 2008) the categories will be dened inductively (Altheide, 1987) by reading the responses. Alternatively, open-response items may be coded according to the basic, disciplinary and reconceptualised denitions of literacy and text identied in the literature. Frequency counts of keyword vocabulary and terms (Probert, 2009) relating to the chosen denition and models could then be analysed. Closed questions such as the Yes/No items and Likert-scale items will be scored and ranked accordingly. Scores of 1/0 and 0 -10 will be used for each of these types of items. Since participants that answered no to knowledge of a particular strategy would not be able to comment on its effectiveness, a score of 0 on the rst item type will immediately result in a score of 0 on the second item type.

14

Conformity to standards for ethical research practice Prior to commencing any data collection, consent will be obtained from all participants. All universities from which participants are drawn will also be formally notied of the purpose, potential impact and potential outcomes of the research. Condentially of the participants will also be preserved, all data will be collected anonymously through a Web-based instrument and no references to individuals will be made within the nal report. All data will be stored and secured according the University guidelines and requirements.

Proposed timeline May 2013 ! Submission of research proposal June - July 2013 ! Data collection August 2013 ! Data collection ! Data analysis September - October 2013 ! Ongoing analysis ! Write up of data analysis and ndings

November 2013 ! Submission of major paper

15

REFERENCES:
ACARA. (2010). Australian Curriculum. Retrieved from: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au Adams, A. E., & Pegg, J. (2012). Teachers enactment of content literacy strategies in secondary science and mathematics classes. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(2), 151-161. Adams, T. L. (2003). Reading mathematics: More than words can say. The Reading Teacher, 56(8), 786-795. Alvermann, D. E., & Swafford, J. (1989). Do content area strategies have a research base?. Journal of Reading, 32(5), 388-394. Alvermann, D. E., Marsh, J. P., & Lammers, J. C. (2009, December). Content literacy methods classes in online disciplinary communities: Can the past inform the present? In Paper presented at the annual meeting of NRC/LRA. Bean, T. W. (1997). Preservice teachers' selection and use of content area literacy strategies. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(3), 154-163. Borasi, R., Siegel, M., Fonzi, J., & Smith, C. F. (1998). Using transactional reading strategies to support sensemaking and discussion in mathematics classrooms: An exploratory study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 275-305. Braselton, S., & Decker, B. C. (1994). Using graphic organizers to improve the reading of mathematics. The Reading Teacher, 48(3), 276-281. Brozo, W. G., Moorman, G., Meyer, C., & Stewart, T. (2013). Content area reading and disciplinary literacy: A case for the radical center. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(5), 353-357. Bullock, J. O. (1994). Literacy in the language of mathematics. The American mathematical monthly, 101(8), 735-743. Chauvin, R., & Molina, C. Secondary content-area literacy: Time for crisis or opportunity for reform?. Texas Comprehensive Centre. Commonwealth of Australia. (2005). Teaching reading: Reports and recommendations. National Enquiry into the Teaching of Literacy. Retried from: http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? lename=2&article=1004&context=tll_misc&type=additional Conley, M. W. (2008). Meeting the challenge of adolescent literacy: Research we have, research we need. The Guilford Press. Daisey, P. (2012). The promise of secondary content area literacy eld experiences. Literacy research and instruction, 51(3), 214-232. DiGisi, L. L., & Fleming, D. (2005). Literacy Specialists in Math Class! Closing the Achievement Gap on State Math Assessments. Voices from the Middle, 13(1), 48-52. Dossey, J., McCrone, S., Turner, R., & Lindquist, M. (2008). PISA 2003Mathematical literacy and learning in the Americas. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 8(2), 140-152. Draper, R. J. (2002). School mathematics reform, constructivism, and literacy: A case for literacy instruction in the reform-oriented math classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(6), 520-529. Draper, R. J., & Siebert, D. (2004). Different goals, similar practices: Making sense of the mathematics and literacy instruction in a standards-based mathematics classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 41(4), 927-962. Draper, R. J., Broomhead, P., Jensen, A. P., & Nokes, J. D. (2012). (Re)imagining literacy and teacher preparation through collaboration. Reading Psychology, 33(4), 367-398. Draper, R. J., Smith, L. K., Hall, K. M., & Siebert, D. (2005). What's more importantliteracy or content? Confronting the literacy-content dualism. Action in Teacher Education, 27(2), 12-21.

16

Dynak, J. (1996). Structuring literacy course tasks to foster deliberate use of strategy instruction by preservice math teachers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40(4), 280-285. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Student and teacher perspectives on the usefulness of content literacy strategies. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47(4), 246-263. Friedland, E. S., McMillen, S. E., & del Prado Hill, P. (2011). Collaborating to cross the mathematicsliteracy divide: An annotated bibliography of literacy strategies for mathematics classrooms. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(1), 57-66. Gorard, S. (2003). Surveying the eld: Questionnaire design. Quantitative methods in social science, 91-120. Goverment of Western Australia. (2013). Major reforms to raise bar on literacy and numeracy. Retrieved from: http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/pages/StatementDetails.aspx?listName=StatementsBarnett&StatId=7125 Hall, L. A. (2005). Teachers and content area reading: Attitudes, beliefs and change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 403-414. Herber, H. L. (1970). Reading in Content Areas: A District Develops Its Own Personnel. Journal of Reading, 13(8), 587-592. Johnson, H. (2013). What's Literacy Got to Do With Science and Math?. School Science and Mathematics, 113(3), 107-108. Johnson, H., Watson, P. A., Delahunty, T., McSwiggen, P., & Smith, T. (2011). What it is they do: Differentiating knowledge and literacy practices across content disciplines. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(2), 100-109. Kilpatrick, J. (2001). Understanding mathematical literacy: The contribution of research. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(1), 101-116. Koichu, B., Berman, A., & Moore, M. (2004). Promotion of heuristic literacy in a regular mathematics classroom. For the Learning of Mathematics, 24(1), 33-39. Kosnik, C., & Beck, C. (2008). We taught them about literacy but what did they learn? The impact of a preservice teacher education program on the practices of beginning teachers. Studying Teacher Education, 4(2), 115-128. Lee, C. D., & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the disciplines: The challenges of adolescent literacy. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Lesley, M. (2011). Understanding Resistance: Preservice Teachers Discourse Models of Struggling Readers and School Literacy Tasks. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(1), 25-34. McConachie, S. M., & Petrosky, A. R. (2009). Engaging Content Teachers in Literacy Development. Content Matters: A Disciplinary Literacy Approach to Improving Student Learning. McIntosh, M. E., & Draper, R. J. (1995). Applying the question-answer relationship strategy in mathematics. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39(2), 120-131. Moje, E. B., Overby, M., Tysvaer, N., & Morris, K. (2008). The complex world of adolescent literacy: Myths, motivations, and mysteries. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 107-154. Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96-107. Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-70. Moje, E. B., Young, J. P., Readence, J. E., & Moore, D. W. (2000). Reinventing adolescent literacy for new times: Perennial and millennial issues. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(5), 400-410.

17

Novick, L. R. (2004). Diagram literacy in preservice math teachers, computer science majors, and typical undergraduates: The case of matrices, networks, and hierarchies. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(3), 307-342. Olson, M. R., & Truxaw, M. P. (2009). Preservice science and mathematics teachers and discursive metaknowledge of text. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(5), 422-431. Phillips, D. C. K., Bardsley, M. E., Bach, T., & Gibb-Brown, K. (2009). " But I Teach Math!" The Journey of Middle School Mathematics Teachers and Literacy Coaches Learning to Integrate Literacy Strategies into the Math Instruction. Education, 129(3), 467-472. Probert, E. (2009). Information literacy skills: Teacher understandings and practice. Computers & Education, 53(1), 24-33. Pugalee, D. K. (1997). Connecting writing to the mathematics curriculum. Mathematics Teacher, 90(4), 308-10. Pugalee, D. K. (1999). Constructing a model of mathematical literacy. The Clearing House, 73(1), 19-22. Pugalee, D. K. (2001). Using communication to develop students' mathematical literacy. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6(5), 296-99. Punch, K. F. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. SAGE Publications Limited. Santoro, L. E., Chard, D. J., Howard, L., & Baker, S. K. (2008). Making the very most of classroom readalouds to promote comprehension and vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 396-408. School Curriculum and Standards Authority. (2010). Curriculum Framework Learning Statement for Mathematics. Retrieved from: http://www.scsa.wa.edu.au/internet/Years_K10/Curriculum_Framework Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40-59. Siebert, D., & Draper, R. J. (2008). Why content-area literacy messages do not speak to mathematics teachers: A critical content analysis. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47(4), 229-245. Spitler, E. (2011). From resistance to advocacy for math literacy: One teacher's literacy identity transformation. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(4), 306-315. Stewart, R. A., & O'Brien, D. G. (1989). Resistance to content area reading: A focus on preservice teachers. Journal of Reading, 32(5), 396-401. Ulusoy, M., & Dedeoglu, H. (2011). Content area reading and writing: Practices and beliefs. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(4), 1. UNESCO (2006). Understandings of literacy. EFA Global Monitoring Report. Vaughan, J. L. (1977). A scale to measure attitudes toward teaching reading in content classrooms. Journal of Reading, 20(7), 605-609. Yore, L. D., Pimm, D., & Tuan, H. L. (2007). The literacy component of mathematical and scientic literacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(4), 559-589.

18