↓ Skip to main content

How Portuguese and American teachers plan for literacy instruction

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Dyslexia, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
How Portuguese and American teachers plan for literacy instruction
Published in
Annals of Dyslexia, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11881-015-0107-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise Spear-Swerling, Joao Lopes, Celia Oliveira, Jamie Zibulsky

Abstract

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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Master 6 15%
Professor 5 13%
Lecturer 3 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Other 9 23%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 26%
Social Sciences 8 21%
Arts and Humanities 4 10%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 10 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 September 2017.
All research outputs
#6,754,738
of 13,029,440 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Dyslexia
#82
of 151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,662
of 234,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Dyslexia
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,029,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 151 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 234,096 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.