Search

Teachers' knowledge of literacy has gained considerable interest over the last three.decades, largely with a focus on the basic language constructs of phonological. awareness and phonics. Fewer studies, however, have focused on spelling. Given the. close relationship between reading and spelling and the necessity of an explicit. understanding of the phonological, orthographic, and morphological patterns of English. spelling in the science of teaching reading, the current study examines educators'. knowledge of English spelling. Specifically, this pilot investigation focuses on those. who are teaching the teachers—teacher educators from multiple institutions throughout. the United States, who completed a survey assessing their knowledge and. understanding of the phonological, orthographic, and morphological aspects of English. spelling. Moreover, the survey assessed the 85 teacher educators' self-efficacy in. teaching spelling and their philosophical stance on spelling instruction. Findings. indicate that the teacher educators feel they were not prepared to teach spelling, although they believed that some of the pivotal characteristics of spelling (i.e., morphological awareness and alphabetic principle) are important in teaching spelling. Additionally, while teacher educators were able to determine some of the correct. spelling patterns, many spelling patterns posed problems for them. Lastly, teacher. educators overall lacked knowledge concerning spelling for diverse learners. Research. and practice implications for teacher education and preparation are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Taking into account the fact of global economic integration, this paper improves the RICE model and the MRICES model, and establishes a new integrated assessment model MRICES-2012, which takes Ramsey utility as the standard of fairness. Based on the model, schemes which meet the global emission mitigation targets as well as the interests of developing countries are simulated to assess the international fairness of emission reduction. Therefore, a new feasible scheme is proposed, which can not only reach the Copenhagen Consensus but also ensure interests of every country. Specifically speaking, the US and Japan cut emissions 80% and 70% respectively by 2050 relative to the 1990 level; the EU and other developed countries cut 80% by 2050 relative to 1990 level; high human development countries cut 50% by 2050 relative to 1990 level; all above-mentioned countries start emission reduction from 2020 and keep emission on 2050 level by 2100; China begins emission reduction from 2030 and cuts emission 15% by 2050 and 25% by 2100 relative to 2005 level; medium human development countries keep emission on 2020 level by 2100; low human development countries do not take part in reduction on emission intensity and global emission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]