MISCONCEPTIONS AND PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF LITERACY ACROSS THE CURRICULUM AMONG STUDENT TEACHERS IN GHANA

Rebecca Arthur, Aikins Addae, Isaac Owusu Nyarko, Daniel Arkoh Fenyi

Abstract


The study sought to ascertain misconceptions and perceived importance of Literacy Across the Curriculum (LAC) among student teachers of Basic Education, University of Education, Winneba. Out of a targeted population of 1,386 student teachers of Basic Education, 490 were selected using a stratified random sampling technique. A closed-ended questionnaire was used to gather data and frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviations, independent samples t-test, ANOVA, and Pearson’s correlation were used to examine the data obtained. The results, among others, revealed that the misconceptions held by Basic Education students at the University of Education, Winneba, was the fact LAC shoul be restricted to the Arts, and not the Sciences. They were of the view that students from the arts background should focus on developing their literacy skill in order to excel in their field. However, the students were of the view that LAC is important since through the use of language, symbols, and text, literacy is promoted across the curriculum to give students the ability to share information about themselves and their experiences. Based on these findings, it was suggested that literacy should be integrated in all aspects of the curriculum. Listening, speaking, reading, and writing are to be taught to students as fundamental abilities for many facets of daily life, not only in English Language lessons. Lecturers and student teachers should ensure that literacy across the curriculum is promoted regardless of the course(s) they teach and study respectively.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter


Keywords


misconceptions, importance, literacy, across, curriculum

Full Text:

PDF

References


Babbie, E. R. (2015). The practice of social research. Nelson Education.

Bruce, B. & Davidson, J. (2006). An inquiry model for literacy across the curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 28. 281-300.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.

Chauvin, R., Theodore, K. (2015). Teaching content-area literacy and disciplinary literacy. SEDL insights. American Institutes for Research.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education (8th ed.). London: Routledge.

Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Educational Research 4thed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano-Clark. V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. (2nd ed.). Sage Publication, Los Angeles.

Fenty, N. S. & Brydon, M. (2017). Integrating Literacy and the Content Curriculum to Support Diverse Learners. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 15, p225-238.

Joppe, M. (2016). The Research Process. Retrieved on November, 2022. Journal of Mathematics and Technology, 8(5), 53-67.

Kirsten, N. (2019). Improving literacy and content learning across the curriculum? How teachers relate literacy teaching to school subjects in cross-curricular professional development. 10. 368-384.

Kivunja, C. & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and Applying Research Paradigms in Educational Contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 26–41

Lervåg A, Hulme, C., & Melby-Lervåg M. (2018). Unpicking the developmental relationship between oral language skills and reading comprehension: it’s simple, but complex. Child Development, 89(5), 1821–1838

Omona, J. (2013). Sampling in Qualitative Research: Improving the Quality of Research Outcomes in Higher Education. Makerere Journal of Higher Education, 4, 169-185.

Quinn, J. M., Wagner, R. K., Petscher, Y., & Lopez, D. (2015). Developmental relations between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension: a latent change score modeling study. Child Development, 86(1), 159–75.

Savage, J. (2010). Cross-Curricular Teaching and Learning in the Secondary School. London: Routledge

Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for research in early literacy. New York: Guilford Press.

United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (2004). United Nations decades of education for sustainable development: Draft international implementation scheme. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/tls/mods/themea/popups/mod01t05s01.html

Urkins, J. & Yates, K. (2021). Shifting the Balance: 6 Ways to Bring the Science of Reading into the Balanced Literacy Classroom. New Hampshire: Stenhouse Publishers.

White, L. & Millar, R. B. (2014). Quantitative Approaches. In V. Wright-St Clair, D. Reid, S. Shaw and J. Ramsbotham (Eds.), Evidence based Health Practice. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejel.v8i3.4913

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright © 2015 - 2023. European Journal of English Language Teaching (ISSN 2501-7136) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms.

All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).