Contemporary qualitative research methodologies and issues in literacy education
2005; Wiley; Volume: 40; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1598/rrq.40.1.5
ISSN1936-2722
Tópico(s)Reading and Literacy Development
ResumoReading Research QuarterlyVolume 40, Issue 1 p. 90-110 Contemporary qualitative research methodologies and issues in literacy education First published: 09 November 2011 https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.40.1.5Citations: 2 Joseph Tobin is the Nadine Mathis Basha Professor of Early Childhood Education at Arizona State University. His research interests include cross-cultural studies of early childhood education, children and the media, and qualitative research methods. Among his publications are Preschool in Three Cultures: Japan, China, and the United States; Good Guys Don't Wear Hats: Children's Talk About the Media; and Pikachu's Global Adventure: The Rise and Fall of Pokémon. He can be contacted at PO Box 871411, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1411, USA, or by e-mail at [email protected] Constance A. Steinkuehler is a learning sciences researcher at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and the Academic Co-Lab whose work focuses on the documentation and analysis of the forms of cognition and learning MMOGs recruit from those who play. She is currently finishing her dissertation on MMOGs in the University of Wisconsin Literacy Studies Department and is an associate lecturer in educational psychology. She can be contacted at 112A Teacher Education Bldg., 225 North Mills St., University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706-1795, USA, or by e-mail at [email protected] Rebecca W. Black is a doctoral student in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, where she teaches courses in the teaching of English language arts. Her current research interests include adolescent identity, second-language acquisition, and literacy and composition practices in online contexts. She can be contacted at 112A Teacher Education Bldg., 225 N. Mills St., University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706-1795, USA, or by e-mail at [email protected] Katherine A. Clinton is a doctoral student in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Her current research focuses on studying the roles of feeling and the body in bringing about new forms of literacy and learning in the digital domains of video games. She can be contacted at 112C Teacher Education Bldg., 225 N. Mills St., University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706-1795, USA, or by e-mail at [email protected] Kathleen A. Hinchman is an associate professor and chair of the Reading and Language Arts Center at Syracuse University, where she teaches methods courses in elementary and secondary school literacy and runs the Literacy Clinic. Her research interests focus on the social construction of literacy, with emphasis on adolescent literacy and literacy teacher education. She can be contacted at the Reading and Language Arts Center, School of Education, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244-2340, USA, or by e-mail at [email protected] Deborah R. Dillon is a professor of literacy and language and qualitative research methods in education and Chair of the Curriculum and Instruction Department in the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Minnesota. Her research interests focus on the literacy practices of teachers and learners in K-12 schools, particularly adolescents, and the sociocultural and historical contexts shaping literacy events and participants' lives. Dillon also participates in and researches undergraduate literacy teacher education initiatives and long-term professional development programs with K-12 school partners. She can be contacted at 145 Peik Hall, 159 Pillsbury Drive SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455-0208, USA, or by e-mail at [email protected] AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstract Scholars who are drawn to qualitative research methodologies represent a diverse group of disciplines and fields. They also represent themselves as researchers and the theoretical frameworks in which they work quite differently. Indeed, it was this diversity in representation that initially motivated us to propose a New Directions feature on qualitative methodologies. Specifically, we were curious as to how scholars who use different approaches to inquiring about a wide range of literacies and literate practices would respond to an invitation to comment on what they perceive as the most significant or critical issues currently facing qualitative researchers. Through a series of e-mail exchanges, Joseph Tobin (Arizona State University); Constance Steinkuehler, Rebecca Black, and Katherine Clinton (University of Wisconsin—Madison); Kathleen Hinchman (Syracuse University); and Deborah Dillon (University of Minnesota) settled on the following points around which to respond to the “critical issues” question that we had posed initially: 1 Their perceptions of the current state of qualitative research. 2 Methodological insights they have gained from disciplines and fields outside their own. 3 Examples from their current work that illustrate how they are dealing with issues they perceive as critical to advancing qualitative research. The authors' responses characterize what we believe is a wellspring of ideas worthy of consideration and further discussion. Toward that end, we invite readers to enter into dialogue with the ideas presented here, either in the form of letters to the editor or commentaries. Donna E. Alvermann & David Reinking REFERENCES Allington, R.L. (1994). What's special about special programs for children who find learning to read difficult? Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 1–21. Briggs, J. (1998). Inuit morality play: The emotional education of a three-year-old. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Buckingham, D. (1993). Children talking television: The making of television literacy. London: Falmer. Coles, G. (2003). Reading the naked truth: Literacy, legislation, and lies. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Dyson, A.H. (1997). Writing superheroes: Contemporary childhood, popular culture, and classroom literacy. New York: Teachers College Press. Erickson, F., & Gutiérrez, K. (2002). Culture, rigor, and science in educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 21–24. Hodge, R., & Tripp, D. (1986). Children and television: A semiotic approach. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Kamberelis, G. (2001). Producing heteroglossic classroom (micro)cultures through hybrid discourse practice. Linguistics and Education, 12(1), 85–125. Newkirk, T. (1992). Listening in: Children talk about books (and other things). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press. Smith, F. (2003). Unspeakable acts, unnatural practices: Flaws and fallacies in “scientific” reading instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. St. Pierre, E.A. (2002). “Science” rejects postmodernism. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 25–27. Tobin, J. (2000). Good guys don't wear hats: Children's talk about the media. New York: Teachers College Press. Tobin, J. (2004). Pikachu's global adventure: The rise and fall of Pokémon. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Tobin, J., Wu, D., & Davidson, D. (1989). Preschool in three cultures: Japan, China, and the United States. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. L. Towne, & R. Shavelson (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Abram, D. (1996). The spell of the sensuous: Perception and language in a more-than-human world. New York: Random House. D.E. Alvermann (Ed.). (2002). Adolescents and literacies in a digital world. New York: Peter Lang. Alvermann, D.E., & Hagood, M. (2000). Fandom and critical media literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43, 436–446. Anderson, C.A. (2003). Violent video games: Myths, facts, and unanswered questions. Retrieved August 18, 2004, from http:www.apa.orgsciencepsasb-anderson.html. Barab, S.A., Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., Squire, K., & Keating, T. (2002). Using activity theory to understand the contradictions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9, 76–107. Black, R.W. (2004, April). Animé-inspired affiliation: An ethnographic inquiry into the literacy and social practices of English language learners writing in the fanfiction community. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Burnett, G., & Buerkle, H. (2004). Information exchange in virtual communities: A comparative study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 9(2). Retrieved August 18, 2004, from www.ascusc.orgjcmcvol9issue2burnett.html [link updated May 2007 to http:jcmc.indiana.eduvol9issue2burnett.html] Chandler-Olcott, K., & Mahar, D. (2003). Tech-savviness meets multiliteracies: Exploring adolescent girls' technology-mediated literacy practices. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 356–385. Clinton, K. (2004, April). Being-in-digital-worlds as a new kind of resource for learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. (2002). Bringing evidence-driven progress to education: A recommended strategy for the U.S. Department of Education (Executive Summary). Washington, DC: Author. De Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press. De Saussure, F. (1986). Course in general linguistics ( R. Harris, Trans.). Berkeley, CA: Open Court. Engeström, Y., & Miettinen, R. (1999). Introduction. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 1–16). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215–251. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. New York: Longman. Fransella, F., & Bannister, D. (1977). A manual for repertory grid technique. London: Academic Press. Gee, J.P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jenkins, H. (1992). Textual poachers: Television, fans, and participatory culture. New York: Routledge. Jenkins, H. (2004). Why Heather can write: Digital renaissance. Technology Review, 6. Retrieved August 18, 2004, from http:www.technologyreview.comarticles0402wo_jenkins020604.asp. Lam, E. (2000). Literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on the Internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 457–482. Latour, B. (1996). On interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 228–245. Latour, B. (2004). How to talk about the body? The normative dimension of science studies. Body & Society, 10, 205–229. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lemke, J. (2001). The long and the short of it: Comments on multiple timescale studies of human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 17–26. Markham, A.N. (2003, October). Images of Internet: Tool, place, way of being. Paper presented at the fourth annual conference of the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR), Toronto, Canada. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1979). Phenomenology of perception ( C. Smith, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. B. Nardi (Ed.). (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92. Olson, D. (1994). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Provenzo, E.F., Jr. (1992). The video generation. American School Board Journal, 179(3), 29–32. D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.). (1998). Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Reyna, V. (2002, January). What is scientifically based evidence? What is its logic? Paper presented at the Use of Scientifically Based Research in Education Work Group Conference, Washington, DC. Steinkuehler, C.A. (2003, September). Massively multiplayer online videogames as a constellation of literacy practices. Paper presented at the 2003 International Conference on Literacy, Ghent, Belgium. Steinkuehler, C.A. (2004a). Learning in massively multiplayer online games. In Y.B. Kafai, W.A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A.S. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 521–528). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Steinkuehler, C.A. (2004b, January). Online cognitive ethnography: Methods for studying massively multiplayer online videogaming culture. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Conference on Interdisciplinary Qualitative Studies, Athens, GA. Strom, D., Kemeny, V., Lehrer, R., & Forman, E. (2001). Visualizing the emergent structure of children's mathematical argument. Cognitive Science, 25, 733–773. Sudnow, D. (1983). Pilgrim in the microworld: Eye, mind, and the essence of video skill. New York: Warner Books. Allington, R. (2002). Big brother and the national reading curriculum: How ideology trumped evidence. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Alvermann, D.E. (2001). Reading adolescents' reading identities: Looking back to see ahead. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45, 118–122. American Educational Research Council. (2003). Resolution on the essential elements of scientifically-based research. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Retrieved June 10, 2004, from www.aera.netmeetingcouncilresolution03.htm [page no longer active; link disabled post-publication] Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Boden, D. (1990). People are talking: Conversational analysis and symbolic interaction. In H.S. Becker & M.M. McCall (Eds.), Symbolic interaction and cultural studies (pp. 244–274). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods ( 3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning ( 2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Davies, B. (1993). Shards of glass: Children reading and writing beyond gendered identities. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Denzin, N.K. (1992). Symbolic interactionism and cultural studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Dillon, D. (1989). Showing them that I want them to learn and that I care about who they are: A microethnography of the social organization of a secondary low-track English-reading classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 227–259. Finders, M. (1997). Just girls: Life and literacy in junior high. New York: Teachers College Press. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gaskins, R., Gaskins, I., & Anderson, R.C. (1995). The reciprocal relationship between research and development: An example involving a decoding strand for poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, 337–377. Gee, J.P., & Crawford, V. (1998). Two kinds of teenagers: Language, identity, and social class. In D.E. Alvermann, K.A. Hinchman, D.W. Moore, S.F. Phelps, & D.R. Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents' lives (pp. 225–246). New York: Erlbaum. Gutiérrez, K.D., Baquedano-López, P., & Turner, M.G. (1997). Putting language back into language arts: When the radical middle meets the third space. Language Arts, 74, 368–378. Hinchman, K.A. (1987). The textbook and three content-area teachers. Reading Research and Instruction, 24, 247–263. Hinchman, K.A., Alvermann, D.E., Boyd, F., Brozo, W., & Vacca, R. (2003). Supporting older students' in- and out-of-school literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47, 304–310. Hinchman, K.A., & Michel, P. (1999). Reconciling polarity: Toward a responsive model of evaluating literacy performance. The Reading Teacher, 52, 578–587. Hinchman, K.A., & Young, J.P. (2001). Speaking but not being heard: Two adolescents negotiate classroom talk about text. Journal of Literacy Research, 33, 243–268. Hinchman, K.A., & Zalewski, P. (1996). Reading for success in a tenth-grade global studies class: A qualitative study. Journal of Literacy Research, 26, 91–106. Hull, G.A., & Schultz, K. (2002). School's out: Bridging out-of-school literacies with classroom practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Ivey, G. (1999). A multicase study in the middle school: Complexities among young adolescent readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 172–192. Johns, J. (1972). Children's conceptions of reading and their reading achievement. Journal of Reading Behavior, 4, 56–57. Johnston, P. (1985). Understanding reading disability: A case study approach. Harvard Educational Review, 55, 153–177. Kos, R. (1991). Persistence of reading disabilities: The voices of four middle school students. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 875–895. Labov, W. (2003). New directions in research: When ordinary children fail to read. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 128–131. [doi:10.1598/RRQ.38.1.5] Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97, 47–68. Lalik, R., & Hinchman, K.A. (2001). Critical issues: Examining constructions of race in literacy research: Beyond silence and other oppressions of white liberalism. Journal of Literacy Research, 33, 529–562. Lincoln, Y. (1998). From understanding to action: New imperatives, new criteria, new methods for interpretive researchers. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 34, 339–342. Michel, P. (1994). The child's view of reading: Understanding for teachers and parents. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Moje, E.B. (1996). “I teach students, not subjects”: Teacher-student relationships as contexts for secondary literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 172–195. Moje, E.B. (2000). “To be part of the story”: The literacy practices of gangsta adolescents. Teachers College Record, 102, 651–690. 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, 38–70. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Pub. No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. O'Brien, D., Stewart, R., & Moje, E.B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 442–463. Pressley, M. (2002). Reading instruction that works ( 2nd ed.). New York: Guilford. Schwandt, T.A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research ( 2nd ed., pp. 189–213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Shannon, P. (1995). Text, lies, and videotape: Stories about life, literacy and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Taylor, D. (1994). From a child's point of view. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No child left behind. Retrieved July 27, 2004, from http:www.ed.govnclboverviewintropresidentplanindex.html. Woodside-Jiron, H. (2003). Critical policy analysis: Researching the roles of cultural models, power, and expertise in reading policy. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 530–536. Young, J.P. (2000). Boy talk: Critical literacy and pedagogy. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 312–337. Baumann, J., Ware, D., & Edwards, E.C. (2003, December). Teaching vocabulary in fifth-grade: A year-long formative experiment. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ. Cohen, D.K., Raudenbush, S.W., & Ball, D.W. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 119–142. Dewey, J. (1981). Social inquiry. In J.J. McDermott (Ed.), The philosophy of John Dewey (pp. 397–420). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1938). Dillon, D.R. (1996). Perspectives for literacy research: Qualitative inquiry. In L. Baker, P. Afflerbach, & D. Reinking (Eds.), Developing engaged readers in school and home communities (pp. 219–223). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dillon, D.R., & O'Brien, D.G. (2003, December). The role of formative experiments within the broader framework of pragmatism and practicality in literacy research. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ. Dillon, D.R., O'Brien, D.G., & Heilman, E.E. (2000). Literacy research in the next millennium: From paradigms to pragmatism and practicality. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 10–26. Educational Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-279, 116 Stat. 1939 (2002). Available from Thomas Legislative Information on the Internet, http:thomas.loc.gov. Eisenhart, M., & Towne, L. (2003). Contestation and change in national policy on “scientifically based” education research. Educational Researcher, 32(7), 31–38. Jacobs, E. (1992). Culture, context, and cognition. In M.D. LeCompte, W.L. Millroy, & J. Pressle (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 293–335). New York: Academic. Jiménez, R.T. (1997). The strategic reading abilities and potential of five low literacy Latina/o readers in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 224–243. Moje, E.B., Eccles, J., Davis-Kean, P., Watt, H., & Richardson, P. (2003, December). An examination of the social and cultural influences on adolescent literacy development (Grant # RO1 HD046115-01). Paper presented at the NICHD/OSERS/OVAE meeting of the Adolescent Literacy Network, Bethesda, MD. Newman, D. (1990). Opportunities for research on the organizational impact of school computers. Educational Researcher, 19(3), 8–13. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods ( 3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Peshkin, A. (1993). The goodness of qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22(2), 23–29. Pressley, M. (2004). What I have learned up until now about research methods in reading education. In R. Robinson, M.C. McKenna, & J.M. Wedman (Eds.), Issues and trends in literacy education (pp. 287–301). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Reading Excellence Act. Title VIII of the Departments of Labor, Health, and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill, 1999. Pub. L. No. 105–227 112 Stat. 2681. Retrieved August 17, 2004, from http:frwebgate.access.gpo.gov cgi-bingetdoc.cgidb-name105_cong_public_laws&docidf:publ277.105.pdf [link updated post-publication to http:www.ed.govofficesOESEREAlegis.html] Reinking, D., & Bradley, B.A. (2003). What are formative experiments and why are they needed? Symposium conducted at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ. Reinking, D., & Watkins, J. (2000). A formative experiment investigating the use of multimedia book reviews to increase elementary students' independent reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 384–419. Song, M., Coggshall, J.G., & Miskel, C.G. (2004). Where does policy usually come from and why should we care? In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 445–461). Baltimore: Brookes. St. Pierre, E.A. (2002). “Science” rejects postmodernism. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 25–27. L. Towne, & R. Shavelson (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Citing Literature Volume40, Issue1January/February/March 2005Pages 90-110 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)