Marc Nachowitz
Miami University, Teacher Education, Faculty Member
Research Interests:
Drawing on research from online, knowledge-building, and discussion-based learning, this design-based experiment captures the instructional moves theorized to develop student capacity in progressive, literary discourse. The experiment... more
Drawing on research from online, knowledge-building, and discussion-based learning, this design-based experiment captures the instructional moves theorized to develop student capacity in progressive, literary discourse. The experiment employed Knowledge Forum and its unique capacity to scaffold student learning of progressive discourse that results in an explanatory model, theory, or literary interpretation. Analysis of student discussion posts within and between two iterative phases suggest that explicit instruction in progressive discourse, combined with regular classroom debriefings of online discussion, contributed to student mastery. Additionally, the use of sentence starters aligned with each Knowledge Forum scaffold for progressive discourse provided positive outcomes. Implications for using online, progressive, literary discourse scaffolds to inculcate disciplinary thinking and discussion appropriate to the secondary English/Language Arts class are discussed. Nachowitz, M. (2018). Scaffolding progressive online discourse for literary knowledge building.
Research Interests:
Using a national sample of students’ writing from the National Study of Writing Instruction, this study examines the current state of writing in the mathematics classroom and the extent to which enactments align with the intentions... more
Using a national sample of students’ writing from the National Study of Writing Instruction, this study examines the current state of writing in the mathematics classroom and the extent to which enactments align with the intentions established in the research base and curricula articulated by NCTM and the CCSS–M. Over 3,000 writing assignments from 138 students in grades, 6, 8, 10, and 12 were analyzed for functions of writing and epistemic complexity—the degree to which they explained or justified mathematical understanding. Additionally, shortanswer assignments were analyzed qualitatively for patterns in teacher-assigned prompts and student responses. Analyses reveal enactments of writing in the mathematics classroom do not align with the intent articulated by the CCSS-M. Mirroring techniques from the literacy field, a method for scaffolding students’ improved ability to write about conceptual understanding in mathematics is discussed.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Using National Study of Writing Instruction data as a baseline, I examine typical practices of writing in math and posit a theoretical framework, a blueprint for writing in math, that has potential for achieving Applebee’s vision for... more
Using National Study of Writing Instruction data as a baseline, I examine typical practices of writing in math and posit a theoretical framework, a blueprint for writing in math, that has potential for achieving Applebee’s vision for knowledge-in-action, using writing to transform learning and deepen student understanding of math content as well as fostering engagement with the essential conversations of the math discipline.
Research Interests:
Sara’s story reports the effects of an experimental intervention applying knowledge building principles for learning, as well as the unanticipated improvement of literacy skills of students with IEPs.
Research Interests:
Increasing attention has been paid in recent years to the ways writing may engage adolescents in higher levels of epistemic complexity (i.e., postulating causes, reasons and other relations or theories related to scientific phenomena),... more
Increasing attention has been paid in recent years to the ways writing may engage
adolescents in higher levels of epistemic complexity (i.e., postulating causes, reasons and other
relations or theories related to scientific phenomena), yet in secondary science classrooms, writing
has primarily been used for assessing students’ content knowledge. Embedded in a larger national
study of secondary writing in the United States, this study investigated the qualities of science
writing samples collected from 33 adolescents attending schools identified for exemplary writing
performance. We asked: How is epistemic complexity reflected in adolescents’ writing?; How
does the level of epistemic complexity differ by adolescents’ language background, grade level,
and school context?; What is the nature of the relationship of types of writing and higher or lower
levels of epistemic complexity? We found the majority of writing adolescents produced did not
show evidence of high levels of epistemic complexity. Notable exceptions were reading reflections
and lab reports. Implications for adolescent science writing instruction are discussed in light of
higher standards for disciplinary writing in secondary schools.
adolescents in higher levels of epistemic complexity (i.e., postulating causes, reasons and other
relations or theories related to scientific phenomena), yet in secondary science classrooms, writing
has primarily been used for assessing students’ content knowledge. Embedded in a larger national
study of secondary writing in the United States, this study investigated the qualities of science
writing samples collected from 33 adolescents attending schools identified for exemplary writing
performance. We asked: How is epistemic complexity reflected in adolescents’ writing?; How
does the level of epistemic complexity differ by adolescents’ language background, grade level,
and school context?; What is the nature of the relationship of types of writing and higher or lower
levels of epistemic complexity? We found the majority of writing adolescents produced did not
show evidence of high levels of epistemic complexity. Notable exceptions were reading reflections
and lab reports. Implications for adolescent science writing instruction are discussed in light of
higher standards for disciplinary writing in secondary schools.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Taking up Lucy Calkins’ call for teachers to share their efforts to teach students to talk well, this article reports the effects of a five month intervention on students’ ability to construct deep reading by emphasizing explicit... more
Taking up Lucy Calkins’ call for teachers to share their efforts to teach students to talk well, this article reports the effects of a five month intervention on students’ ability to construct deep reading by emphasizing explicit instruction in progressive discourse. Utilizing Knowledge Forum, a computer-supported learning environment, this intervention captures teacher and student efforts to internalize the discourse strategies of literary talk and the creation of literary interpretations. Qualitative and quantitative data capture students’ increased performance at progressive discourse resulting in deeper reading. Suggestions for practitioners are provided to facilitate the instruction of literary talk through digital domains as well as face-to-face instruction
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This volume is meant to cull scholarship on both what high literacy sounds and looks like in secondary English/Language Arts classrooms and how high literacy can be developed. It embraces the call put forth by Langer and Applebee... more
This volume is meant to cull scholarship on both what high literacy sounds and looks like in secondary English/Language Arts classrooms and how high literacy can be developed. It embraces the call put forth by Langer and Applebee (2016) that “high literacy must continue to be our aim” and to see more research analyzing and identifying how teachers might promote literacy practices that promote “deep thinking around important content” (p. 341).
Therefore, in this volume we aim to make several specific contributions: First, we (the editors) seek to describe a conceptual framework for high literacy that explicates how each component (i.e. reading, writing, dialogic engagement, and epistemic cognition in literary reasoning) relates to the others and from what scholarly literature these concepts have been derived. Second, individual chapter authors will provide in-depth examination of the existing research base on particular related topics, focusing on the two important cross-cutting aims of the volume: (1) explicating the roles reading, writing, dialogic engagement, and epistemic cognition in high literacy development, and (2) providing examples of instructional practices recommended to develop high literacy. Our final objective is to offer implications for future research as well as theory and practice particularly with regard to what kinds of assistance educators might need to deconstruct literacy standards in ways that pay explicit attention to developing high literacy.
Therefore, in this volume we aim to make several specific contributions: First, we (the editors) seek to describe a conceptual framework for high literacy that explicates how each component (i.e. reading, writing, dialogic engagement, and epistemic cognition in literary reasoning) relates to the others and from what scholarly literature these concepts have been derived. Second, individual chapter authors will provide in-depth examination of the existing research base on particular related topics, focusing on the two important cross-cutting aims of the volume: (1) explicating the roles reading, writing, dialogic engagement, and epistemic cognition in high literacy development, and (2) providing examples of instructional practices recommended to develop high literacy. Our final objective is to offer implications for future research as well as theory and practice particularly with regard to what kinds of assistance educators might need to deconstruct literacy standards in ways that pay explicit attention to developing high literacy.
Research Interests:
Literacy is not a unitary skill, but one that involves using language and reasoning strategically for many different purposes in different situations and communities. It is essential that students in secondary schools become adept at... more
Literacy is not a unitary skill, but one that involves using language and reasoning strategically for many different purposes in different situations and communities. It is essential that students in secondary schools become adept at doing so. This edited volume makes a clear and cogent case for why this is so critical and, even more importantly, provides useful and powerful examples of how to make " high literacy " a reality. —Steve Graham, Warner Professor of Educational Leadership & Innovation, Arizona State University All of the authors share a concern for how high literacy can serve as a blueprint for engineering English language arts pedagogy that is more rigorous, inclusive, and relevant than what most secondary students encounter today. The chapters offer well-theorized and classroom-tested ideas about how to achieve that goal, and the editors frame that work with an optimism that is both clear-eyed and inviting. —Kelly Chandler-Olcott, Laura J. & L. Douglas Meredith Professor of Teaching Excellence, Syracuse University