Critical issues: Preparation for new literacy researchers in multi-epistemological, multi-methodological times

Journal of Literacy Research

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 345-360

  Duke, Nell K ^a   Mallette, Maria H ^b  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 25844471280     PISSN: 1086296X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10862960109548114     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Alvermann, D.E., & Hruby, G.G. (2000). Mentoring and reporting research: A concern for aesthetics. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 46-63.
2. Cunningham, J.W., & Fitzgerald, J. (1996). Epistemology and reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 36-60.
3. Dillon, D.R., O'Brien, D.G., & Heilman, E.E. (2000). Literacy research in the next millennium: From paradigms to pragmatism to practicality. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 10-26.
4. Duke, N.K. (1999, December). Social reproduction through literacy education: An investigation in first grade classrooms. In A. McGill-Franzen (Chair), Literacy instruction: Maintaining the status quo. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Orlando, FL.
5. Duke, N.K., & Beck, S.W. (1999). Education should consider alternative formats for the dissertation. Educational Researcher, 28 (3), 31-36.
6. Duke, N.K., Roach, K., & Willett, J.B. (2001). Growth modeling: Toward statistical methodology more consistent with fundamental assumptions about literacy development. Unpublished manuscript.
7. Dunston, P.J., Headley, K.N., Schenk, R.L., Ridgeway, V.G., & Gambrell, B. (1998). National Reading Conference research reflections: An analysis of 20 years of research. In T. Shanahan & F.V. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), Forty-seventh year-book of the National Reading Conference (pp. 441-450). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
8. Edmonson, J. (2000). America reads: A critical policy analysis. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
9. Eisenhart, M., & Borko, H. (1993). Designing classroom research: Themes, issues, and struggles. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
10. Gee, J.R (2000). The limits of refraining: A response to Professor Snow. Journal of Literacy Research, 32, 121-128.
11. Guzzetti, B., Anders, P.L., & Neuman, S. (1999). Thirty years of JRB/JLR: A retrospective of reading/literacy research. Journal of Literacy Research, 31, 67-92.
12. Jaeger, R.M. (1993). Statistics: A spectator sport. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13. Kamil, M.L., Langer, J.A., & Shanahan, T. (1985). Understanding research in reading and writing. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
14. Kamil, M.L, Mosenthal, P.B., Pearson, P.D., & Barr, R. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Mallette, M.H. (1999, December). "What do I do with these kids?": The learning to teach process in literacy of a first-year teacher. In A. McGill-Franzen (Chair), Literacy instruction: Maintaining the status quo. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Orlando, FL.
16. McCarthey, S.J. (1998). Constructing multiple subjectivities in classroom literacy contexts. Research in the Teaching of English, 32, 126-160.
17. Moore, D.W., Monaghan, E.J., & Hartman, D.K. (1997). Values of literacy history. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 90-102.
18. Mosenthal, P.B. (1999). Critical Issues: Forging conceptual unum in the literacy field of pluribus: An agenda-analytic perspective. Journal of Literacy Research, 31, 213-254.
19. Neuman, S.B., & McCormick, S. (Eds.). (1995). Single subject experimental research: Applications for literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
20. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60-92.
21. Nieto, S. (1992). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. New York: Longman.
22. Nieto, S. (1999). What does it mean to affirm diversity? School Administrator, 56 (5), 32-34.
23. Pearson, P.D. (2001). Life in the radical middle: A personal apology for a balanced view of reading. In R. Flippo (Ed.), Reading researchers in search of common ground (pp. 78-83). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
24. Purcell-Gates, V. (2000, July). The role of qualitative and ethnographic research in educational policy. Reading Online, 4(1). Retrieved May 16, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/purcell-gates/
25. Putney, L.G., Green, J.L., Dixon, C.N., & Kelly, G.J. (1999). Evolution of qualitative research methodology: Looking beyond defense to possibilities. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 368-377.
26. Readence, J.E., Bean, T.W., & Baldwin, R.S. (1998). Content area literacy: An integrated approach (6th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
27. Reinking, D., Hynd, C., & Oldfather, P. (1999). Editorial: JLR anniversary issue. Journal of Literacy Research, 31, 1-4.
28. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.
29. Ruddell, M.R. (1999). Of stand-up comics, statisticians, storytellers, and small girls walking backwards: A new look at the discourses of literacy research. In T. Shanahan & F. V. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), Forty-eighth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 1-16). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
30. Scheurich, J.J., & Young, M.D. (1997). Coloring epistemologies: Are our research epistemologies racially biased? Educational Researcher, 26 (4), 4-16.
31. Schoenfeld, A.H. (1999). The core, the canon, and the development of research skills: Issues in the preparation of education researchers. In E.G. Lagemann & L.S. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities (pp. 166-202). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
32. Shulman, L.S. (1999). Professing educational scholarship. In E.G. Lagemann & L.S. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities (pp. 159-165). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33. Snow, C.E. (2000). On the limits of reframing: Rereading the National Academy of Sciences report on reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 32, 113-120.
34. Stanovich, K.E. (1998). Twenty-five years of research on the reading process: The grand synthesis and what it means for our field. In T. Shanahan & F. V. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), Forty-seventh yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 44-58). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
35. Yaden, D.E., Jr., Rowe, D.W., & MacGillivray, L. (2000). Emergent literacy: A matter (polyphony) of perspectives. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson. & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 425-454). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.