How portuguese and american teachers plan for literacy instruction

This study explored American and Portuguese elementary teachers' preferences in planning for literacy instruction using the Language Arts Activity Grid (LAAG; Cunningham, Zibulsky, Stanovich, & Stanovich, 2009), on which teachers described their preferred instructional activities for a hypothetical 2-h language arts block. Portuguese teachers (N = 186) completed Portuguese versions of a background questionnaire and LAAG electronically, in Survey Monkey; American teachers (N = 102) completed identical English measures using paper and pencil. Results showed that teachers in both groups usually addressed comprehension and reading fluency on their LAAGs and that they also allocated the most time to these two areas. However, American teachers were more likely to include teacher-directed fluency activities, whereas Portuguese teachers were more likely to include fluency activities that were not teacher directed. Significantly more American than Portuguese teachers addressed phonics in their planning, whereas significantly more Portuguese than American teachers addressed writing processes such as revision. Both groups of educators demonstrated large variability in planning, with many teachers omitting important components of literacy identified by researchers, for writing as well as reading. The study highlights the importance of providing teachers with comprehensive, research-based core literacy curricula as well as professional development on key components of literacy. Study findings also suggest significant relationships between orthographic transparency and teachers' instructional planning.This research was supported by a 2-year grant from the Foundation Francisco Manuel dos Santos in Portugal as well as by a Connecticut State University research grant in the U.S.A. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to these funding agencies as well as to the teachers and school districts who participated in the study and sent messages of interest about our research. In addition, warm thanks to our research assistants for their help with data collection, coding, and analysis, and to Anne Cunningham for providing us with inspiration as well as guidance in this work.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

The Shared Duty of Special Educational Support in Mathematics: Borders and Spaces in Degree Ordinances for Pre-service Teachers

This chapter investigates the future shared duties of special education pre-service teachers in mathematics and mathematics pre-service teachers for primary school to support students in need of support in mathematics. Within the Swedish context, teacher education training policy frames special education teachers in mathematics (STms) as the historians of schooling, in that they carry specific knowledge about how students in need of support have been treated earlier, and recognise that current practices and policies have been motivated by the history and culture of Swedish schools. This framing also suggests that they have the expertise in supporting students in need of special support and an understanding of specific disabilities or prerequisites for learning that these students can have. In contrast, mathematics teachers for primary school (MTPs) are framed as being responsible for the overall education taking place in classrooms, being willing to collaborate and learn from other professions involved in the students learning and development, and needing to pay attention to those other professions’ experiences and knowledge. In addition, the teacher education training policy indicates that MTPs are supposed to cooperate, listen, and reflect, whereas STms are to lead, be independent, analyse, and drive school development. Furthermore, the position, role, and authority of STms are not supported by the Swedish Education Act. This together with the sometimes contradictory roles identified by each of the profession’s goals in their degree ordinance could put MTPs’ and STms’ shared duties at risk, and creates a need for negotiation. A possible way forward, in order to counteract this risk, might be shared courses during teacher training. This could presumably prepare for future negotiations and collaborations of roles and responsibilities