An analysis of four literacy methods and strategies in order to determine which is the most effective.

Written in 2008; 5,075 words; 14 sources; APA; $ 127.95

This paper compares the effectiveness of different teaching methods for middle school and high school students. It takes a look at the traditional textbook-based, passive method of instruction. It then introduces four new methods: the experimental method, the concept mapping method, the ABC method of questioning, and the question answer relationship (QAR) method. The paper's primary experimental hypothesis is that a traditional, textbook-based, passive method of instruction is less effective then all four literacy methods tested. Its secondary hypothesis is that all four literacy methods are less successful without an element of hands-on direct involvement with practical learning materials integrated into the lesson. The paper concludes that future avenues of research should include studies designed to identify which of the four literacy methods represent the optimal combination of hands-on active participation lesson materials with instructional elements.

Outline:
Introduction
Experimental Hypothesis
Experimental Method
Class Discussions and Discussion Maps
Concept Mapping
ABC Method of Questioning
QAR Method
The Use of Visuals
Identifying Limitations of Literacy Strategies
Analyzing the Application of the Active Instructional Approach
Conclusion

"Discussions are useful for teachers in evaluating students' ideas and building excitement for science. Discussions offer windows into students' thinking, provide students who struggle in reading and writing with a chance to participate more actively in class, and create situations where students can express their ideas differently than in traditional school tasks. Discussions allow students to use their own vocabulary to express their understanding and their peers' ideas to drive their intellectual and academic work of understanding scientific phenomena. Many times learning science is focused on learning content-specific terms and not on understanding and explaining phenomena. Discussions engage students in thinking about their personal experiences and schema and reconciling these ideas with new learning. This process is challenging, but peer collaboration is highly effective. Finally, sense-making discussions are fundamentally scientific because they open a forum that allows all students' ideas to be heard, and for these ideas to be evaluated, connected to their personal experiences of phenomena, and compared with scientific explanations of such phenomena. For example, during a discussion about the heart, the students came to the conclusion that the heart is important because it pumps blood. This led to a question about how the heart pumps blood. During this discussion, I took notes so that later experiments and projects could respond to the questions that my students were asking. The students worked together to generate ideas and understanding and collaboratively generated a question that could deepen their understanding."

Tags: learning, teaching, high, middle, school

1. Essay (General) # 60064 :: Collaborative Planning and Information Literacy Skills ( 25,605 words; 95 sources; )
2. Analytical Essay # 110229 :: Literacy Components in the Math Curriculum ( 1,385 words; 2 sources; )
3. Essay (General) # 35424 :: Improving Student Performance ( 2,400 words; 10 sources; )
4. Essay (General) # 9736 :: Literacy Instruction and Reading Motivation ( 2,205 words; 5 sources; )