Back to the future: Contrasting scientific styles in understanding reading

Carol Mc Donald Connor; Christopher Schatschneider; Frederick J. Morrison; Claire Cameron Ponitz; Shayne B. Piasta; Barry J. Fishman; Elizabeth Coyne Crowe; Stephanie Glasney; Phyllis S. Underwood

doi:10.3102/0013189X09348971

Back to the future: Contrasting scientific styles in understanding reading

Carol Mc Donald Connor, Christopher Schatschneider, Frederick J. Morrison, Claire Cameron Ponitz, Shayne B. Piasta, Barry J. Fishman, Elizabeth Coyne Crowe, Stephanie Glasney, Phyllis S. Underwood

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

In this rejoinder to Willis, Smagorinsky, and Douglas (this issue of Educational Researcher), the authors discuss how many of the points raised by Willis and Smagorinsky regarding their original article, which appeared in the March 2009 issue of Educational Researcher, are concerned less with the methods themselves than with different styles of science. The authors of this rejoinder examine their differing styles of science, using Stanovich's 2003 framework, and call for con- silience and the understanding that multiple perspectives and meth- ods are needed to solve the important and perplexing problems that students and teachers will face in the 21st century.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	537-540
Number of pages	4
Journal	Educational Researcher
Volume	38
Issue number	7
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09348971
State	Published - Oct 2009
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

Classroom research
Reading
Research methodology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Education

Access to Document

10.3102/0013189X09348971

Cite this

@article{7984940ef6ed441a9c54f2df67a446f6,

title = "Back to the future: Contrasting scientific styles in understanding reading",

abstract = "In this rejoinder to Willis, Smagorinsky, and Douglas (this issue of Educational Researcher), the authors discuss how many of the points raised by Willis and Smagorinsky regarding their original article, which appeared in the March 2009 issue of Educational Researcher, are concerned less with the methods themselves than with different styles of science. The authors of this rejoinder examine their differing styles of science, using Stanovich's 2003 framework, and call for con- silience and the understanding that multiple perspectives and meth- ods are needed to solve the important and perplexing problems that students and teachers will face in the 21st century.",

keywords = "Classroom research, Reading, Research methodology",

author = "Connor, {Carol Mc Donald} and Christopher Schatschneider and Morrison, {Frederick J.} and Ponitz, {Claire Cameron} and Piasta, {Shayne B.} and Fishman, {Barry J.} and Crowe, {Elizabeth Coyne} and Stephanie Glasney and Underwood, {Phyllis S.}",

year = "2009",

month = oct,

doi = "10.3102/0013189X09348971",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "38",

pages = "537--540",

journal = "Educational Researcher ",

issn = "0013-189X",

publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",

number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Back to the future

T2 - Contrasting scientific styles in understanding reading

AU - Connor, Carol Mc Donald

AU - Schatschneider, Christopher

AU - Morrison, Frederick J.

AU - Ponitz, Claire Cameron

AU - Piasta, Shayne B.

AU - Fishman, Barry J.

AU - Crowe, Elizabeth Coyne

AU - Glasney, Stephanie

AU - Underwood, Phyllis S.

PY - 2009/10

Y1 - 2009/10

N2 - In this rejoinder to Willis, Smagorinsky, and Douglas (this issue of Educational Researcher), the authors discuss how many of the points raised by Willis and Smagorinsky regarding their original article, which appeared in the March 2009 issue of Educational Researcher, are concerned less with the methods themselves than with different styles of science. The authors of this rejoinder examine their differing styles of science, using Stanovich's 2003 framework, and call for con- silience and the understanding that multiple perspectives and meth- ods are needed to solve the important and perplexing problems that students and teachers will face in the 21st century.

AB - In this rejoinder to Willis, Smagorinsky, and Douglas (this issue of Educational Researcher), the authors discuss how many of the points raised by Willis and Smagorinsky regarding their original article, which appeared in the March 2009 issue of Educational Researcher, are concerned less with the methods themselves than with different styles of science. The authors of this rejoinder examine their differing styles of science, using Stanovich's 2003 framework, and call for con- silience and the understanding that multiple perspectives and meth- ods are needed to solve the important and perplexing problems that students and teachers will face in the 21st century.

KW - Classroom research

KW - Reading

KW - Research methodology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77953516535&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77953516535&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3102/0013189X09348971

DO - 10.3102/0013189X09348971

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:77953516535

SN - 0013-189X

VL - 38

SP - 537

EP - 540

JO - Educational Researcher

JF - Educational Researcher

IS - 7

ER -

Back to the future: Contrasting scientific styles in understanding reading

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this