評論
打印
M: Cyndie, you've been doing research on disciplinary literacy for about 20 years now.
男：辛蒂，到現在為止，你已經研究學科素養大概20年了。
In that time, you've probably been asked just about everything possible.
在這段時間里，你可能被問到各種可能問到的問題。
What question comes up most often these days?
這些天里，哪個問題是最常問的？
W: That's easy. We're doing better convincing teachers that disciplinary literacy is worth teaching,
女：這很容易。我們在說服老師“學科素養是很值得教的”這一點上做得更好了，
but they still are hesitant about their students' reactions.
但他們依然對學生的反應持猶豫的態度。
A teacher said to me recently, "I have enough trouble getting my kids to read a textbook chapter. How would I ever motivate them to read in a disciplinary way?"
最近，有一個老師和我說：“我很難讓我的學生們閱讀教材的一個章節。我怎么用學科的方式來激勵他們呢？”
M: Is that a real question or is it just a mask for teacher resistance?
男：這是一個真實的問題還是教師抗拒的掩飾？
W: I think it's a real question, and in fact, it's also our biggest problem, because many teachers still don't understand the distinctions between content area reading and disciplinary literacy.
女：我認為這是一個真實的問題，事實上，這也是我們最大的問題所在，因為許多老師仍然不明白內容區域閱讀和學科素養的區別。
M: What is disciplinary literacy anyway? You said that's different.
男：那什么是學科素養？你說那是不同的。
W: Disciplinary literacy doesn't promise to make someone a better student.
女：學科素養不會保證讓一個人成為更好的學生。
It invites students to join the disciplinary field itself.
它邀請學生加入學科領域。
It's a kind of invitation to join a club.
它是一種加入俱樂部的邀請函。
M: Does it mean it invites students to join the "history club" by reading like a historian or the "science club" by reading like a scientist.
男：這是否意味著通過像歷史學家一樣閱讀來邀請學生加入“歷史俱樂部”，或是通過像科學家一樣閱讀來邀請學生加入“科學俱樂部”。
W: Right, but it goes beyond that. It says, "We want you to join us. We want to share with you our cognitive secrets, our way of thinking about the world, and how we solve problems.
女：是的，但它不止這些。它表示：“我們想讓你加入我們。我們想與你分享我們的認知秘密、我們是如何看待這個世界以及如何解決問題的。
We want to count you as one of us." In doing that, it both holds out the promise of affiliation, connecting with others is a big motivator,
我們想把你算作我們的一員。”這樣做的話，它會遵守入會的承諾，與別人聯系正是一個很大的動力，
and the promise of greater competency with challenging tasks -- not competency in being a kid or a student,
而且會遵守承諾，讓你擁有更強的能力來應對具有挑戰性的任務——不是作為一個孩子或學生的能力，
but competency in being successful with the kinds of things that adults do.
而是能夠成功應對成年人所做事情的能力。
M: What about assessment? How do we test disciplinary literacy?
男：那評估呢？我們如何測試學科素養呢？
W: There aren't any standardized disciplinary reading or writing tests yet,
女：目前還沒有任何學科閱讀或寫作的標準化測試，
but one can easily imagine how classroom assessments could change in the future as instruction becomes more disciplinary in focus.
但你很容易就能想象得到，隨著教學更加關注學科，課堂評估在未來會發生怎樣的改變。
M: Past assessments in history, literature, or science have aimed to find out if students had mastered particular information.
男：過去對歷史、文學或科學的評估都致力于了解學生是否掌握了某個具體的信息。
Questions about content would certainly still have a place in disciplinary literacy since knowledge matters in disciplinary literacy too.
關于內容的問題一定依然在學科素養里留有一席之地，因為知識在學科素養里也很重要。
But what would a more disciplinary assessment look like?
但一個更側重于學科的評估是什么樣子的？
W: I think a more disciplinary assessment would seek to find out whether students are interpreting such information in a sophisticated way according to the traditions of that discipline.
女：我認為一個更側重于學科的評估會考查學生是否能根據該學科的傳統，用更深刻的方法解釋這些信息。
For example, a disciplinary test in history might ask not only what we know about a historical event,
比如，一個歷史學科測試可能不單單會問“我們知道一個歷史事件的哪些知識”，
but how we know about it -- students would be questioned about the source of the information, the reliability of the source, and how the information matches with information from other sources.
還會問我們是怎么知道的——學生會被問到信息的來源和可靠性，以及這個信息是如何與其他來源的信息相匹配的。
In cases where the information is contradictory, the assessment might ask students to determine whose account was more credible, requiring students to weigh evidence using the same kinds of criteria that historians use.
如果信息是矛盾的，評估會讓學生判斷哪個描述是更為可信的，這要求學生用歷史學家使用的判斷標準來權衡證據。
M: Uhmm. That sounds interesting.
男：嗯。聽起來很有趣。
W: Or a literature assessment might ask students to engage in deeper interpretation than in the past.
女：一個文學評估可能會讓學生做出比過去更為深刻的解讀。
Instead of asking about the theme of a story, for example, an assessment might ask students to determine alternative themes and to decide --
例如，評估不會問故事的主題，而會讓學生從中選擇一個主題——
based on text evidence -- which one the author seemed most sympathetic to.
基于文章中的證據——哪一個是作者最為贊同的。
In other words, it would ask the student to participate in the reading more as a literary critic than a student.
換句話說，它會讓學生從文學評論家的角度來參與閱讀，而不是從學生的角度。
M: How should we prepare teachers to teach disciplinary literacy in teacher training institutions?
男：那我們如何在教師培訓機構讓老師們教授學科素養呢？
W: So far, teacher training institutions haven't done a very good job of helping subject matter teachers understand the discourse practices of their disciplines;
女：到目前為止，教師培訓機構在幫助課程至上的老師懂得他們所授學科的授課實踐方面做得還不是很好；
so those practices often remain implicit, untaught.
因此，那些實踐經常是含蓄且未經訓練的。
M: I agree with that. But have you seen any good examples?
男：我同意這一點。但你見到過正面的例子嗎？
W: Sure, there are some examples of programs that do make disciplinary literacy practices explicit.
女：當然，有一些項目確實讓學科素養實踐變得十分明確。
The best of these programmes, in my opinion,
我認為，這些項目的最好之處在于，
are the result of literacy and disciplinary experts collaborating to determine what these practices are and then engaging students in them.
素養和學科的專家合作來決定這些實踐是什么，然后讓學生參與其中。
This is the end of the second interview.
第二個訪談到此結束。
Questions 6 to 10 are based on what you have just heard.
根據剛剛聽到的內容，回答6至10題。
6. According to the woman, what is the biggest problem in teaching disciplinary literacy?
6.根據這位女士的說法，教授學科素養的最大問題是什么？
7. What does disciplinary literacy really mean?
7.學科素養是什么意思？
8. What would a more disciplinary assessment ask students to do?
8.一個更側重于學科的評估讓學生做什么？
9. Which is the best practice in teacher training institutions to promote disciplinary literacy teaching?
9.在教師培訓機構里，促進學科素養教學的最佳實踐是什么？
10. What is the purpose of the interview?
10.這個訪談的目的是什么？
