ELEMENTARY TEACHERS' BELIEFS ABOUT READING AND KNOWLEDGE OF READING CONTENT: RELATIONSHIPS TO DECISION ABOUT READING OUTCOMES

Relationships between elementary teachers' beliefs about reading, knowledge of basic reading content, and decisions about the importance of students' reading behavior in relation to grade level were examined. Significant correlation coefficients were found for (1) knowledge of reading and reading behavior outcomes focusing on discrimination of sounds represented by consonants and consonant clusters and (2) student‐centered reading beliefs and reading behavior outcomes associated with making conclusions and drawing inferences about stories read. Significant negative correlations were noted for (1) knowledge of reading and outcomes dealing with comprehension of explicitly stated meaning and details in reading passages and (2) student‐centered reading beliefs and all reading outcomes focusing on basic decoding skills and literal comprehension of story information. The best predictor of teachers' identification of important reading behavior outcomes was knowledge of reading content. Reading behavior outcomes differed significantly between primary and intermediate level teachers for recognition of sounds represented by vowels; intermediate teachers gave these higher rankings than did primary teachers. The results indicate that beliefs about reading influence elementary teachers' decisions about the importance of reading outcomes typically taught in the elementary grades. Teachers who hold student‐centered reading beliefs are not likely to value instruction that focuses on decoding.     

Guest Editorial: Conceptualizing Justice and Counter-Expertise

ABSTRACT

Systemic injustices exclude counter-experts from telling their stories and influencing the collective imagination. Four papers and some discussant essays illustrate the ways in which counter-experts cross boundaries to contest knowledge claims, legal institutions, and forms of data in order to resist various forms of injustice. Literature on counter-expertise, socio-technical imaginaries, and epistemic injustice highlights how marginalized groups are prevented from participating in the process of collective imagining. A definition of counter-expertise and a new typology of counter-expertise demonstrate how marginalized groups navigate boundaries to pursue epistemic justice. The four papers in the special issue exemplify the ways in which counter-experts navigate identity politics. To combat epistemic injustice within our field, STS scholars can be more inclusive with teaching, mentoring, reviewing and other forms of scholarly gatekeeping.