.png){kind=icon}
返回
Do We Need More Productive Theorizing? A Commentary
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
DOI：10.1002/rrq.318.png)
.png){kind=icon}
原文求助.png){kind=icon}
分享.png){kind=icon}
收藏
摘要
En 中文
In this commentary, we argue that literacy research would be more productive if researchers had a clearer, more nuanced understanding of theory. Specifically, we argue that theory in a practice-oriented field is most fundamentally productive when it provides instrumental guidanceforliteracy beyond academic understandingaboutliteracy. Premises for that argument are presented, as well as how productivity connects to an instrumental view of theory within the philosophy of science. We provide examples from authoritative sources and relevant studies suggesting that conceptions and uses of theory in literacy research are ambiguous, diffuse, and incoherent. We argue that productivity could be a unifying construct to ameliorate those limitations. To stimulate discussion about theory, we propose several ways that theorizing might be more productive. Those proposals comprise a critique of theorizing in the field and illustrate how more productive theorizing could close the gap between research and practice. Finally, we discuss how our proposals might be implemented in the field's research.
Keyword:
FORMATIVE EXPERIMENT
EDUCATION RESEARCH
LITERACY
NEUROSCIENCE
RELEVANT
STUDENTS
KNOWLEDGE
CHILDREN
PROGRAMS
WILL
AI总结
对已上传原文的论文进行重点信息的提取，主要内容包括：简要概述、研究摘要、背景介绍、关键亮点、图文解析、展望与总结。
期刊
IF:
4.1
论文数:
1.5K
被引数:
4.0K
机构
引用论文
.png){kind=icon}
The state of educational intervention research as viewed through the lens of literacy intervention
PREAI
分享收藏Catalyst‐ and Solvent‐Free Synthesis of N‐Acylhydrazones via Solid‐State Melt Reaction无催化剂和无溶剂条件下通过固态熔融反应合成N‐酰基腙
PREAI
分享收藏
查看更多内容